Pinnacle Nature Reserve Offset, 2015 Monitoring Web viewPinnacle Nature Reserve Offset 2015 Monitoring Report. ... (score

Prepared for: Parks and Conservation Service / Urban ReservesDate: April 2016

Pinnacle Nature Reserve Offset2015 Monitoring Report

www.smec.com

Box-Gum Woodland | SMEC

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Title Pinnacle Nature Reserve Offset 2015 Monitoring Report

Prepared for Parks and Conservation Service/Urban ReservesProject Ref

Name Position Signed/Approved DateOriginator Natasha Crook Graduate Scientist

Review David Moore Senior Scientist

Approval Dr Robert Jessop Principal Scientist Dr Robert Jessop 24/03/2016

Details of RevisionsRev Date Description Approved1 29/04/2016 Final Report Dr Robert Jessop

CONTACT DETAILSSMEC Australia Pty Ltd | www.smec.com

Level 5, 20 Berry StreetNorth Sydney NSW 2060Tel: 02 9925 5555Fax: 02 9925 5566

Representative: Dr Robert JessopP: 02 6234 1924E: [email protected]

SMEC | Pinnacle Nature Reserve Offset| 2 | Page


TABLE OF CONTENTSEXCUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................5

1. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................71.1 Project Overview.......................................................................................................7

1.2 Project Objectives.....................................................................................................7

1.3 Box-Gum Woodland.................................................................................................7

1.4 Project Area...............................................................................................................8

2. METHODS.............................................................................................................................. 92.1 Box-Gum Woodland Monitoring..............................................................................9

2.2 Limitations................................................................................................................. 9

3. RESULTS............................................................................................................................. 103.1 Box-Gum Woodland Monitoring............................................................................103.1.1 Overview................................................................................................................103.1.2 Plot Descriptions....................................................................................................103.1.3 Landscape Attributes..............................................................................................153.1.4 Condition Assessment............................................................................................17

4. DISCUSSION........................................................................................................................184.1 Box-Gum Woodland Monitoring............................................................................18

4.2 Compliance with the Offset Management Plan....................................................19

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................20

REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................21

APPENDICES............................................................................................................................... 25





EXCUTIVE SUMMARYParks and Conservation Service/Urban Reserves (Territory and Municipals Services) engaged SMEC Australia to undertake baseline vegetation surveys within the Pinnacle Nature Reserve offset site, as specified by the University of Canberra Public Hospital Offset Management Plan (Umwelt 2014b). The majority of the offset site supports Box-Gum Woodland.

Data requirements for the site were determined according to the ACT Environmental Offsets Calculator (ACT Government 2015) and field survey techniques were undertaken according to the Monitoring Guidelines for Box-Gum Woodlands (Conservation Research 2015). Plot locations were selected based on representative spatial coverage and apparent floristic diversity.

Landscape attributes and floristic condition assessments were recorded six plots in the Pinnacles Nature Reserve offset site on 17 and 24 December 2015. The plot locations were recorded and photograph monitoring points established. Baseline data for each plot is provided for future trend analyses.

The key outcomes were that:

Identification of disturbance sensitive native flora and the presence of mature woodland trees indicates the presence of moderate to high quality Box-Gum Woodland, consistent with Umwelt (2014a)

The habitat structure in the plots ranges in quality from low-medium-high

The floristic condition of the five Box-Gum Woodland plots varies from low-moderate-high quality, while the floristic condition of the remaining plot (Eucalyptus macrorhyncha Tableland Grass/Shrub Forest) is very high

The extent of Eucalyptus macrorhyncha Tableland Grass/Shrub Forest observed was more restricted than that mapped in Umwelt (2014a).

Management priorities for the Pinnacles Nature Reserve offset site include:

Weed management, particularly for St John’s wort

Appropriately timed biomass management such as light grazing or slashing

Continued placement of woody debris should take into consideration minimising establishment of pest species

Management and monitoring of Eucalyptus macrorhyncha Tableland Grass/Shrub Forest should be implemented as for surrounding woodland areas.





1.INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project OverviewParks and Conservation Service / Urban Reserves (Territory and Municipal Services) engaged SMEC Australia to undertake baseline vegetation surveys at six plots within the Pinnacle Nature Reserve offset site as specified by the University of Canberra Public Hospital Offset Management Plan (Umwelt 2014b). The establishment and the monitoring of the Pinnacle Nature Reserve offset site is a Commonwealth Department of Environment (DoE) approval decision for University of Canberra Public Hospital development (EPBC 2013/6987).

The 2015 baseline survey for the offset site is presented in this report. Box-gum woodland condition is to be monitored three, six and ten years following the preliminary survey (Umwelt 2014b), and results from these future monitoring events will be assessed against the baseline data to identify trends in site condition.

1.2 Project ObjectivesThe purpose of the report is to collect baseline data for comparison with future monitoring data and to meet the requirements of the University of Canberra Public Hospital Offset Management Plan (Umwelt 2014b). Trends in site condition over time are not analysed, as this is the initial survey; however the results are briefly interpreted based on existing site information.

1.3 Box-Gum WoodlandWhite Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Grassland (Box-Gum Woodland) is listed as Critically Endangered under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). It is listed as endangered under the ACT Nature Conservation Act 2014 (NC Act) and endangered under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

The dominant canopy species in Box-Gum Woodland are White Box (Eucalyptus albens), Yellow Box (E. melliodora) or Blakey’s Red Gum (E. blakelyi) or a combination of these species. In the ACT, White Box is typically absent. The canopy cover is relatively open with tree canopy cover 20-50% (NSW Government 2010).

Box-Gum Woodland is characterised by a diverse understorey, rich in native tussocks grasses, herbs and scattered shrubs (i.e. less than 30% cover) (NSW Government 2010). The groundcover is usually characterised by native grasses such as Kangaroo grass (Themeda australis), Snow grass (Poa sieberiana) and/or River tussock (P. labillardieri) (Keith 2004). Other native grasses that are commonly present in this ecological community include Wallaby grasses (Rytidosperma spp.), Spear grasses (Austrostipa spp.), Weeping grass (Microlaena stipoides) and Redleg grass (Bothriochloa spp.) (Keith 2004). There is often a high diversity of forbs, herbs and ferns including Vanilla lilies (Arthropodium spp.), Common woodruff (Asperula conferta), Bulbine lily (Bulbine bulbosa), Tick-trefoils (Desmodium brachypodum and D. varians), Rock fern (Cheilanthes sieberi ssp. sieberi) and Common everlasting (Chrysocephalum apiculatum) (Keith 2004).



Box-Gum Woodland was once formerly widespread along the western slopes and tablelands of the Great Dividing Range across southern Queensland, New South Wales and to central Victoria (NSW Government 2010). Since European settlement, less than 5% is good quality and is often found in isolated patches. In 2004, approximately 34% of the pre-1750 extent of Box-Gum Woodland persisted in the ACT, including some of the largest intact remnants of the community persisting throughout NSW and ACT (ACT Government 2004).

Threats to Box-Gum Woodland include clearing, weed invasion and overgrazing.

A site must meet the following criteria to qualify as Box-Gum Woodland under the EPBC Act (Australian Government 2006):

The most common canopy species must be White box, Yellow box or Blakely’s red gum

The understorey must be predominantly native The patch size must be greater than 0.1 ha There must be 12 or more native forb understorey species At least one ‘important’ species.

In the ACT, Box – Gum Woodland is generally classified according to the EPBC Act criteria, however the following criteria for Box-Gum Woodland under the NC Act (Maguire and Mulvaney 2011) are also considered:

Areas with a greater than 30% shrub cover are excluded

50% or more of the perennial ground cover must be native

Patches of at least 20 mature Yellow Box or Red Gum trees that have a continuous canopy cover, but may have an exotic understorey, are included.

1.4 Project AreaThe Pinnacle Nature Reserve offset site covers 19.5 ha within Belconnen Rural Blocks 1616 and 1370 between the existing Pinnacle Nature Reserve and William Hovell Drive (Figure 1).

The ACT Government identified the area to be a suitable offset due to the presence of Box-Gum Woodland. Umwelt (2014a) assessed the area as a potential offset site for the development of the University of Canberra Public Hospital in July 2013 and November 2013. The area was subsequently approved as an offset under the DoE approval decision EPBC 2013/6987.

The area supports 15.5 ha of Box-Gum Woodland, 4 ha of secondary grassland and 4 ha of Eucalyptus macrorhyncha Tableland Grass/Shrub Forest (Umwelt 2014a) with high floristic and structural integrity, a low abundance of perennial exotic pastures and a high level of landscape connectivity (Umwelt 2014a). The area also supports recorded foraging habitat for the superb parrot and potential habitat for the pink-tailed worm lizard.

Umwelt (2014b) prepared and offset management plan covering weed control, pest animal, erosion and revegetation.



2.METHODS

2.1 Box-Gum Woodland MonitoringField survey technique and data requirements for the site were in accordance with the ACT Environmental Offsets Calculator (ACT Government 2015). The field survey was undertaken according to the Monitoring Guidelines for Box-Gum Woodlands (Conservation Research 2015), with six 20 m x 50 m plots incorporating a 50 m transect to collect landscape attributes and 20 m x 20 m plots used to assess floristic diversity. Plot locations were selected based on spatial coverage and representative floristic diversity. Monitoring photographs were taken towards the south-west from the north-eastern corner of the plot.

Monitoring data for plots was compared to the ACT vegetation benchmarks for vegetation community ACT16 (Eucalyptus melliodora – E. blakelyi tableland Grassy Woodland) and ACT27 (Eucalyptus macrorhyncha Tableland Grass/Shrub Forest) (ACT Government 2016, Appendix E). Floristic Value Scores (FVS) were calculated according to Rehwinkel (2007) and Environment Conservation (2015) to obtain a comparable assessment of floristic condition. Relative Quality was then determined based on FVS according to criteria specified by Rehwinkel (2007) and the Act Government (2015), as follows:

Very low quality: (score <5) little floristic value, and dominated by exotic species and/or common native species

Low quality: (score 5-9) low floristic value

Moderate quality: (score 10-14) moderate floristic value with a few significant species

Moderate – High quality :( score 15-19) moderate to high floristic value

Very high quality (score 25-35) very high floristic values

2.2 LimitationsThis study was completed in mid-December 2015. The optimal time to conduct Box-Gum Woodland surveys is spring, when the greatest diversity of native forb species is detectable. The late timing of the surveys made it difficult or impossible to detect or identify some plant species resulting in a probable underestimate of species diversity.

Some plants could only be identified to Genus level due to insufficient diagnostic material such as flowers and fruits. In all cases, a sufficient level of identification was achieved to determine the native or exotic status of individuals.



3.RESULTS

3.1 Box-Gum Woodland Monitoring

3.1.1 OverviewField surveys were completed on 17 and 24 December 2015. All field data was collected in accordance with the ACT Environmental Offset Calculator (ACT Government 2015) and Monitoring Guidelines for Box-Gum Woodland (Conservation Research 2015).

Six plots were established in the project area during the field assessment (Figure 2, Appendix B). The six plots (i.e. 20 m x 50 m) were selected randomly by placing sites on a recent satellite image. Plots were located across the site to achieve spatial coverage. The plot locations were mapped using the projected coordinate system GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55.

A complete list of all plant species identified in the plots and abundance scores is presented in Appendix C. A total of 91 species (i.e. 54 native species, 37 exotic species) were recorded, ten of which are listed as ‘Important’ species for the classification of Box-Gum Woodland.

Plot photographs for monitoring purposes are provided in Appendix D.

3.1.2 Plot Descriptions

3.1.2.1 Plot 1 (PIPLO1)

Plot 1 (Figure 3) is located on a relatively flat area in the west of the site, close to an existing dam near the boundary of the offset site (Figure 2). An existing track is present north and west of the plot. The area was selected and surveyed prior to the placement of woody debris (Figure 3), and future monitoring results will reflect this change.

Figure 3. Location of PlPL01. Woody debris was placed after the survey was completed.



A single Blakely’s red gum is present within the quadrat. This tree contains large hollows and may provide breeding habitat for threatened species such as the Superb parrot (Polytelis swainsonii). Regeneration of young Blakely’s red gum was present surrounding the plot.

The native groundcover within Plot 1 was sparse with only a few individual plants of grasses such as Kangaroo grass, River tussock and Weeping grass present. Rushes such as Tall sedge (Carex appressa) were also present. One important species for the classification of Box-Gum Woodland, Kangaroo grass, was identified.

Exotic grasses are abundant within the plot, including perennial grasses such as Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), Bulbous canary grass (Phalaris aquatica) and annual grasses such as Oats (Avena sp.) and Tail fescue (Vulpia sp.). One noxious weed, Paterson’s curse (Echium plantagineum) was recorded.

3.1.2.2 Plot 2 (PIPLO2)

Plot 2 (Figure 4) is located in the south-west of the offset site on a gentle SW facing slope (Figure 2).

Figure 4. Location of PIPL02. The area supports regenerating Blakely’s Red Gum and native understorey.

The native canopy consists of regenerating Blakely’s red gum saplings and one large habitat tree (i.e. Blakely’s red gum). There were 15 young Blakely’s red gum with an average height of 2 m and 15 saplings (i.e. <1 m in height) within the plot. Small rocks scattered within the plot may provide habitat for Pink-tailed worm lizard.

The native ground cover is dense with grasses and scattered forbs. Dominant grass species include Tall spear grass (Austrostipa bigeniculata), Corkscrew spear grass (Austrostipa scabra), Wallaby grasses (Rytidosperma carphoides and Rytidosperma caespitosum) and Kangaroo grass. Dominate herbs include Yellow buttons and Tufted knawel (Scleranthus diander). Four important species for the identification of Box-Gum Woodland, i.e., Kangaroo grass, Twining glycine (Glycine clandestina), Yellow buttons, Knob sedge (Carex inversa) and Yellow rush-lily (Tricoryne elatior), were identified in the plot.



Weeds are scattered at low abundance in the plot and include exotic annual grasses such as Tall fescue and Soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), and forbs such as Haresfoot clover (Trifolium arvense) and Saffron thistle (Carthamus lanatus). No noxious weeds were identified.

3.1.2.3 Plot 3 (PIPLO3)

Plot 3 (Figure 5) is located in the south of the offset site on a moderate SW facing slope (Figure 2). Small rocks are scattered near the plot. Large habitat trees are also present in the surrounding area.

Figure 5. Location of PIPL03. This area was classified as Eucalyptus macrorhyncha Tableland Grass/Shrub Forest.

The native canopy in the general area consists of Scribbly gum (Eucalyptus rossii) and Red stringybark (Eucalyptus macrorhyncha). Blakely’s red gum saplings are also scattered throughout the area. One Red stringybark sapling and two Scribbly gum saplings were recorded in the plot.

The groundcover supports predominantly native grasses and forbs. Dominant grass species include Wallaby grasses, Spear grasses, Snow grass and Kangaroo grass. Herbs and rushes include Many-flowered Mat-rush (Lomandra multiflora), Common raspwort (Gonocarpus tetragynus), Yellow buttons and Blue devil (Eryngium ovinum). One small shrub, Honeypots (Acrotriche serrulata), was identified. Eight important species for identification of Box-Gum Woodland, i.e., Kangaroo grass, Yellow buttons, Clustered everlasting (Chrysocephalum semipapposum), Slender tick-trefoil, Ivy goodenia (Goodenia hederacea), Variable plantain (Plantago varia), Wild sorghum (Sorghum leiocladum) and Hoary guinea flower (Hibbertia obtusifolia), were identified in the plot.

No noxious weeds were identified. The most common exotics species are annual grasses such as Tall fescue and hair grass (Aira sp.). Scattered exotic forbs include Saffron thistle and Clovers (Trifolium sp.).



3.1.2.4 Plot 4 (PIPL04)

Plot 4 (Figure 6) is located on a gentle west facing slope in the east of the offset site (Figure 2). There are several large Yellow box and Blakely’s red gum provide habitat in the area surrounding the plot. Large rocks, both fixed and loose, are present throughout the plot.

Figure 6. Location of PIPL04. The plot was located among the scattered rocks next to the large Yellow box on the left side of the frame.

Yellow box was the only native canopy species recorded within the plot, with one large habitat tree present.

Native ground cover includes predominately-native grasses. These include Spear grasses, Wallaby grasses, Redleg grass and Weeping grass. Native herbs include Slender tick-trefoil, Twining glycine and Variable Glycine (Glycine tabacina). Three important species for identification of Box-Gum Woodland, i.e., Twining glycine, Variable glycine and Wild sorghum, were identified in the plot.

One noxious weed (i.e. Paterson’s curse) was present. Exotic groundcover species were present at moderate abundance throughout the plot including grasses such as Sliver hair grass, Soft brome and Barley grass (Hordeum sp.). Exotic forbs recorded included Saffron thistle, Vervain (Salvia verbenaca) and Common horehound (Marrubium vulgare).

3.1.2.5 Plot 5 (PIPLO5)

Plot 5 (Figure 7) is located on a moderate SW facing slope in the north of the offset site (Figure 2). The area is open and grassy. One large Apple box (Eucalyptus bridgesiana) provides bird habitat nearby. Small scattered rocks are present in the higher areas of the plot.



Figure 7. Location of PIPLO5. The area is secondary grassland with scattered large trees.

One Blakely’s red gum was present within the plot.

Native grasses such as Kangaroo grass, Snow tussock, Spear grasses and Redleg grass dominated native groundcover. Native forbs, herbs and rushes include Slender tick-trefoil, Yellow buttons, Common rasp wort and Wattle mat rush (Lomandra filiformis). Two important species for identification of Box-Gum Woodland, i.e., Kangaroo grass and Yellow buttons, were identified in the plot.

One noxious weed (i.e. Paterson’s curse) was present. Other weeds included annual grasses such as Sliver grass, Soft brome and Tall fescue, and forbs such as Skeleton weed (Chondrilla juncea) and Sheep sorrel (Acetosella vulgaris).

3.1.2.6 Plot 6 (PIPLO6)

Plot 6 (Figure 8) is located in an open grassy area with a gentle slope with a westerly aspect in the north of the offset site (Figure 2). No trees are present. Scattered small logs were present outside but adjacent to the plot. The plot is located near a natural drainage line.



Figure 8. Location of PIPLO6. This area is secondary grassland with a mixture of native and exotic species.

The native ground cover within the plot was dominated by native grasses, including Spear grasses, Wallaby grasses and Redleg grass. Forb diversity was low. Native forbs including Australia’s hound tongue (Cynoglossum australe) and Creeping knotweed (Persicaria prostrata) were present. One important species for identification of Box-Gum Woodland (i.e. Kangaroo grass) was recorded in the plot.

One noxious weed (i.e. St John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum)) is scattered in the plot. Saffron thistle and Large quaking grass (Briza maxima) were present in dense patches.

3.1.3 Landscape AttributesThe landscape values attributes of each plot are summarised in Table 1. These attribute values are discussed relative to the benchmarks for the relevant ecological communities and would be comparable with landscape value attributes collected in future monitoring surveys at the offset site (Appendix E).

3.1.3.1 Plot 1 (PIPL01)

In comparison to the vegetation benchmark for ACT16 (Eucalyptus melliodora – E. blakelyi tableland Grassy Woodland), PIPL01 is classified as low-medium quality, as native species richness (NPS) native over-storey (NOS), native midstorey (NMS), number of trees (NLT) and total length of fallen logs (FL) are below the benchmark for the ecological community. Native ground cover (NGCG) and native ground cover other (NGCO) are within the lower percentile on the benchmark. The plot had a high proportion of exotic cover.



Table 1. Landscape value attributes recorded for each plot.

Plot NPS NOS NMS NGCG NGCS NGCO EPC NLT OR FL

PIPL01_L 11 0 0 26 0 16 62 1 1 8.5

PIPL02_M 27 0 0 56 0 0.6 36 1 1 16

PIPL03_G 33 27.5 0 34 0 28 18 0 1 54

PIPL04_L 20 5.5 0 44 0 0 34 1 0.5 5

PIPL05_M 19 0 0 66 0 0.06 54 0 0 2

PIPL06_M 14 0 0 68 0 0 48 0 0 0NPS: number of native plant species (0.04 ha plot) NOS: native overstorey cover (50 m transect) NMS: native midstorey cover (50 m transect) NGCG: native ground cover – grasses (50 m transect) NGCS: native ground cover – subshrubs (50 m transect) NGCO: native ground cover – ‘other’ (50 m transect) EPC: exotic plant cover in all strata (50 m transect) NLT: number of large trees in 0.1 ha plot OR: proportion of native overstorey species regenerating in vegetation zone FL: length of fallen logs in 0.1 ha plot

3.1.3.2 Plot 2 (PIPL02)

In comparison to the vegetation benchmark for ACT16 (Eucalyptus melliodora – E. blakelyi tableland Grassy Woodland), PIPL02 is classified as medium quality, as NGCG was on the higher percentile for the benchmark and both NGCS and NGCO are within the lower percentile on the benchmark. Despite this, NPS, NOS, NLT and FL are below the benchmark for the ecological community.

3.1.3.3 Plot 3 (PIPL03)

In comparison to the vegetation benchmark for ACT 27 (Eucalyptus macrorhyncha Tableland Grass/Shrub Forest), PIPL03 would be considered as high quality, as NPS, NOS, NGCG, NGCO and NLT are all higher than the benchmark for the ecological community. The FL are within the higher percentile of the benchmark. The plot had a low proportion of exotic cover.

3.1.3.4 Plot 4 (PIPL04)

In comparison to the vegetation benchmark for ACT16 (Eucalyptus melliodora – E. blakelyi tableland Grassy Woodland), PIPL04 is classified as low-medium quality, as NGCG was in the higher percentile for the benchmark and NMS is within the lower percentile on the benchmark. In contrast, NPS, NOS, NLT and FL are below the benchmark for the ecological community.

3.1.3.5 Plot 5 (PIPL05)

In comparison to the vegetation benchmark for ACT16 (Eucalyptus melliodora – E. blakelyi Tableland Grassy Woodland), PIPL05 is classified as low-medium quality, as NGCG was in the higher percentile for the benchmark and NMS is within the lower percentile on the benchmark. In contrast, NPS, NOS, NLT and FL are below the benchmark for the ecological community.



3.1.3.6 Plot 6 (PIPL06)

In comparison to the vegetation benchmark for ACT16 (Eucalyptus melliodora – E. blakelyi Tableland Grassy Woodland), PIPL06 is classified as low-medium quality, as NGCG surpass the higher percentage percentile and NMS is within the lower percentile on the benchmark. In contrast, NPS, NOS, NLT and FL are below the benchmark for the ecological community. The plot had a moderate percentage of exotic cover.

3.1.4 Condition AssessmentComplete species lists and species abundance scores for each plot are presented in Appendix C. The calculated FVS, relative quality classification and vegetation community are presented in Table 2. Details of FVS calculations are provided in Appendix D.

Table 2. FVS, Relative Quality and vegetation community classification for each plot.

Plot FVS Relative Quality* Vegetation Community

PIPL01_L 5 Low quality ACT 16 - Eucalyptus melliodora – E. blakelyi Tableland Grassy Woodland

PIPL02_M 17 Moderate-High quality ACT 16 - Eucalyptus melliodora – E. blakelyi Tableland Grassy Woodland

PIPL03_G 27 Very High quality ACT 25 - Eucalyptus macrorhyncha Tableland Grass / Shrub Forest

PIPL04_L 7 Low quality ACT 16 -Eucalyptus melliodora – E. blakelyi Tableland Grassy Woodland

PIPL05_M 10 Moderate quality ACT 16 - Eucalyptus melliodora – E. blakelyi Tableland Grassy Woodland

PIPL06_M 4 Very Low quality ACT 16 - Eucalyptus melliodora – E. blakelyi Tableland Grassy Woodland

Of the six plots, five met criteria for classification as Box-Gum Woodland (ACT 16 – Eucalyptus melliodora – E. blakelyi Tableland Grassy Woodlands) and one site was classified as ACT 25 - Eucalyptus macrorhyncha Tableland Grass / Shrub Forest. The average FVS for the Box-Gum Woodland vegetation community is 8.6. The site with the highest FVS was PIPL03; however, this site is not classified as Box-Gum Woodland due to the dominance of Red stringybark and Scribbly gum.



4.DISCUSSION

4.1 Box-Gum Woodland MonitoringBased on the plot attributes, all but one of the plots were classified as Box-Gum Woodland. The quality of Box-Gum Woodland varied across the site and in some patches contained a canopy and/or regenerating canopy (i.e. PlPL02), while other plots (i.e. PIPL05 and PIPL06) are secondary native grassland with little or no canopy present. While Plot 2 (i.e. PIPLO2) is in an area mapped as Eucalyptus macrorhyncha Tableland Grass/Shrub Forest by Umwelt (2014a), this area supports predominantly Blakely’s red gum and, on the basis of this assessment, is classified as Box-Gum Woodland. PIPL03 supports a canopy of Red stringybark and Scribbly gum and, on this basis, is not classified as Box-Gum Woodland.

Even though the classification of PIPLO3 as Eucalyptus macrorhyncha Tableland Grass/Shrub Forest is consistent with the mapping by Umwelt (2014a), the distribution of Red stringybark and Scribbly gum around PIPL03 is restricted and located in a larger landscape dominated by Box-Gum Woodland, and the groundcover was more typical of Box-Gum Woodland than Eucalyptus macrorhyncha Tableland Grass / Shrub Forest as it was grassy and very diverse. Consequently, while in the individual plot assessment does not meet the criteria for Box – Gum woodland on the basis of canopy tree species, on a broader landscape scale, the plot can be considered to be located within a continuous area of Box–Gum Woodland.

The results of the landscape attribute survey indicate that the offset site supports low to medium quality habitat with patches of high quality habitat, based on comparison with the ACT vegetation benchmarks (Appendix A). The total native groundcover proportion varied between 42% and 68%, although the northern section had a higher proportion of exotic species (i.e. PIPL01: 62%) compared with the southern section (PIPL03: 18%). Most plots were secondary grassland or supported only a single mature tree. Fallen timber was present in all but one plot, with lengths recorded between 2 m and 54 m, although PIPL03, with 54 m, was an outlier with the next highest amount of fallen timber recorded being 16 m. This data would be comparable with future monitoring data and permit analysis of changes to habitat structure. Following the survey, a contractor placed logs at PIPL01 as part of the offset management implementation and this change will be detected in the next monitoring event.

The FVS recorded in the plots varied from very low-moderate-high quality. One plot (PIPL06) had FVS of less than 5 (very low quality) and two plots (PIPL01 and PIPL04) had floristic value score between 5 and 9 (low quality). One plot had floristic value score between 10 and 14 (moderate quality) and one plot had a floristic value score between 15 and 19 (moderate-high quality). While the plot with the highest FVS (PIPL03) of 25 (very high quality) was not classified as Box-Gum Woodland due to the dominance of non-woodland canopy tree species within the plot, the ground cover was consistent with very high quality Box-Gum Woodland. Overall, groundcover was dominated by native grasses and there was a high diversity of native groundcover species.

The native species identified during the survey were largely disturbance tolerant species and disturbance tolerant native grasses. The dominance of disturbance tolerant native plants is the consequence of historical grazing. Despite this, 10 indicator species for the identification of Box-Gum Woodland, many of which are considered grazing intolerant, were recorded in the plots. Over time, the removal of livestock grazing will benefit these disturbance sensitive plants and this benefit should be detectable through changes in species composition and increased FVS in future monitoring events.



Differences in vegetation condition reported, compared to the preliminary survey of the offset site (Umwelt 2014a), are due to the more comprehensive nature of the current survey. The field assessment for Umwelt (2014a) was a rapid assessment of the offset site to determine relative condition based on one floristic plot and a localised meandering survey. This survey used the ACT Offset Calculator survey method to provide a detailed assessment of the entire offset site.

4.2 Compliance with the Offset Management PlanThe offset monitoring program (Umwelt 2014b) requires a baseline survey to be completed in the first year of offset establishment. This baseline assessment meets the requirements according to the ACT Environmental Offsets Calculator Operational Manual (ACT Government 2015) and Monitoring Guidelines for Box-Gum Woodlands (Conservation Research 2015); however, while the offset management plan recommended surveys be completed in spring 2015 to improve detection of native forbs, this assessment was completed in summer 2015. Repeating the survey in spring 2016 would maximise the visibility of most plant species, allow detection of the highest number of species and comply with the offset monitoring program.

The quality of Box-Gum Woodland shall be monitored 3, 6 and 10 years following offset establishment. As this is the baseline survey, the requirement for interpreting the Box-Gum Woodland quality and condition results in relation to previous monitoring results does not yet apply.



5.CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONSSix vegetation monitoring plots were established within the Pinnacles Nature Reserve offset site, and baseline landscape attribute and floristic condition data collected in accordance with the University of Canberra Public Hospital Offset Management Plan (Umwelt 2014b) and relevant ACT Government guidelines (ACT Government 2015; Conservation Research 2015).

Plot coordinates and photo-points are reported in Appendices B and D to enable relocation and future monitoring of the plots permitting assessment of long term changes in habitat structure and floristic composition. Baseline data for each plot is provided in summarised form for incorporation into analysis trends over time once ongoing monitoring data is collected. Assessment of the data in relation to the previous results was not undertaken as this is the first year of data collection.

The key outcomes were that:

Identification of disturbance sensitive native flora and the presence of mature woodland trees indicates the presence of moderate to high quality Box-Gum Woodland, consistent with Umwelt (2014a)

The habitat structure in the plots ranges in quality from low-medium-high

The floristic condition of the five Box-Gum Woodland plots varies from low-moderate-high quality, while the floristic condition of the remaining plot (Eucalyptus macrorhyncha Tableland Grass/Shrub Forest) is very high

The extent of Eucalyptus macrorhyncha Tableland Grass/Shrub Forest observed was more restricted than that mapped in Umwelt (2014a); however, remapping was beyond the scope of this assessment.

Ongoing management will be required to meet the objective of the University of Canberra Public Hospital Offset Management Plan to maintain and enhance Box-Gum Woodland within the Pinnacles Nature Reserve offset site. Recommended management actions based on observations during the baseline assessment include:

St John’s wort must be controlled throughout the site to prevent further degradation to native groundcover. Other weeds, such as Saffron thistle, should also be managed to prevent further spread.

Light grazing or mowing/slashing can be undertaken at appropriate times of the year to reduce biomass. The timing of biomass management should not occur during seed set of weed species or during spring where native species are setting flower and seed.

Woody debris placement has commenced and should continue within the site.

While Eucalyptus macrorhyncha Tableland Grass/Shrub Forest around PIPL03 is not classified as EPBC Act listed Box-Gum Woodland, the diverse groundcover of this area is consistent with very high quality Box-Gum Woodland. Management and monitoring should be implemented as for surrounding woodland areas. The extent of Eucalyptus macrorhyncha Tableland Grass/Shrub Forest within the offset site should be reassessed in a future survey.



REFERENCESACT Government (2004). Woodlands for Wildlife: ACT Lowland Woodland Conservation Strategy,

Action Plan No. 27, Environment ACT, Canberra. Accessed from: <http://www.environment.act.gov.au/cpr/conservation_and_ecological_communities/lowland_woodlands/woodlands_strategy>

ACT Government (2015). ACT Environmental Offsets Calculator Operational Manual. Environment and Planning Directorate – Environment. Canberra.

ACT Government (2016). Environmental Offsets – Vegetation Benchmarks. Environment and Planning Directorate – Environment. Canberra. Accessed from: <http://www.environment.act.gov.au/cpr/environmental-offsets-policy.>

Conservation Research (2015). Monitoring guidelines for Box-Gum Woodland. Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate, Canberra.

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (2010). National Recovery Plan for White Box -Yellow Box -Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland. Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, Sydney.

Department of Heritage and Environment (2006). White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands. EPBC Act policy statement: Nationally threatened species and ecological communities, Department of Heritage and Environment, Canberra. Accessed from: <http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/be2ff840-7e59-48b0-9eb5-4ad003d01481/files/box-gum.pdf>

Keith, D. (2004). Ocean shores to desert dunes: the native vegetation of New South Wales and the ACT. NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, Hurstville.

Maguire, O. and Mulvaney, M. (2011). Box-Gum Woodland in the ACT. Technical Report 25. Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate, Canberra.

Rehwinkel, R. (2007). A method to assess grassy ecosystem sites: Using floristic information to assess a site’s quality. NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change, Sydney.

Umwelt (2014a). University of Canberra Public Hospital Preliminary Document EPBC Ref 2013/6987 . Report for Brown Consulting.

Umwelt (2014b). University of Canberra Public Hospital Preliminary Document EPBC Ref 2013/6987 Offset Management Plan. Interim report for Brown Consulting.


http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/be2ff840-7e59-48b0-9eb5-4ad003d01481/files/box-gum.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/be2ff840-7e59-48b0-9eb5-4ad003d01481/files/box-gum.pdf

http://www.environment.act.gov.au/cpr/environmental-offsets-policy

http://www.environment.act.gov.au/cpr/conservation_and_ecological_communities/lowland_woodlands/woodlands_strategy

http://www.environment.act.gov.au/cpr/conservation_and_ecological_communities/lowland_woodlands/woodlands_strategy








APPENDICES





APPENDIX A: VEGETATION BENCHMARKS

Vegetation type Richness IPS (No. of spp)

Lower NOSMin (% PFC)

Upper NOSMax (% PFC)

Lower NMSMin (% PFC)

Upper NMSMax (% PFC)

Lower NGCGMin

(% PFC)

Upper NGCGMax

(% PFC)

Lower NGCSMin (% PFC)

Upper NGCSMax

(% PFC)

Lower NGCOMin

(% PFC)

Upper NGCOMax

(% PFC)NLT

Total length

(FL) (m)

Eucalyptus melliodora – E. blakelyi Tableland Grassy Woodland

35 11 32 0 12.5 23 63 0 4.5 8 16.5 5 35

Eucalyptus macrorhyncha Tableland Grass / Shrub Forest

29 20 36 2 10 14 40 6 22 4 15 3 60

NoteExotic plant cover is calculated as the percentage of total ground and mid-storey cover.AcronymsNOS Native Over-Storey NMS Native Mid-StoreyNGCG Native Ground Cover GrassesNGCS Native Ground Cover ShrubsNGCO Native Ground Cover OtherPFC Percent Foliage CoverIPS Indigenous Plant SpeciesEEC Ecologically Endangered CommunityFL Fallen Logs (≥10 cm dia & ≥0.5 m long)NLT Number of Large Trees (Circumference ≥150 cm @ 1 m above ground OR hollow ≥5 cm wide @ ≥1 m above ground)



APPENDIX B: PLOT LOCATIONS

Plot Name Zone Easting Northing

PIPL01_L 55 684746 6095889

PIPL02_M 55 684924 6095735

PIPL03_G 55 685058 6095739

PIPL04_L 55 685242 6096025

PIPL05_M 55 685175 6096127

PIPL06_M 55 685058 6096161



APPENDIX C: VEGETATION SURVEY 2015

Complete flora list for each plot and abundance score for each species within plots.

Plot ID Native/Exotic PIPLO1 PIPLO2 PIPLO3 PIPLO4 PIPLO5 PIPLO6

Acetosella vulgaris E 1 1 2 1 +

Aira sp. E 1 1 r 1 1

Avena sp. E r +

Briza minor E r 1

Bromus catharticus E 2

Bromus diandrus E 1 2 2

Bromus hordeaceus E 2 1 2 1

Carthamus lanatus E + 1 r 1 r 2

Centaurium erythraea E 1 r +

Chondrilla juncea E r 1 1 r

Conyza sp. E + r

Echium plantagineum E + 1 + r

Galium aparine E r

Hirschfeldia incana E +

Holcus lanatus E 1

Hordeum sp. E 3

Hypericum perforatum E +

Hypochaeris radicata E 1 r + + +

Lolium perenne E 2 1

Marrubium vulgare E 1 r

Modiola caroliniana E +

Paronychia brasiliana E r

Paspalum dilatatum E 1

Petrorhagia nantueilii E + r

Phalaris aquatica E 3

Plantago lanceolata E 1 + + r

Poa sp. E 2

Rosa rubiginosa E r

Salvia verbenaca E 1

Solanum nigrum E r +

Sonchus sp. E 1 r

Tragopogon sp. E r r

Trifolium arvense E + 1 1 1 r




Trifolium angustifolium E r +

Verbascum sp. E + r

Vulpia sp. E 3 2 1 2 3 3

Acaena ovina N r + + + r

Acrotriche serrulata N 2

Aristida ramosa N 1 r

Rytidosperma caespitosum N 3 2 3 3 3

Rytidosperma carphoides N 3 2 3 2 2

Rytidosperma eriantha N r r

Austrostipa bigeniculata N 4 3 4 4 3

Austrostipa scabra N 2 2 3 3 3

Bossiaea buxifolia N r

Bothriochloa macra N 2 2 2 2

Carex appressa N 3

Carex inversa N r

Chamaesyce drummondii N + r

Cheilanthes sieberi N + r

Chrysocephalum apiculatum N 3 1 +

Chrysocephalum semipapposum

N +

Convolvulus erubescens N r

Cynoglossum australe N r + r

Desmodium varians N 1 r r

Einadia nutans N r +

Elymus scaber N 2 2 2 2

Eryngium ovinum N 1

Eucalyptus blakelyi N r r r

Eucalyptus macrorhyncha N r

Eucalyptus melliodora N r

Eucalyptus rossii N r

Geranium solanderi N r +

Glycine clandestina N + 1

Glycine tabacina N r

Gonocarpus tetragynus N 4 +

Goodenia hederacea N r

Hibbertia obtusifolia N r

Hydrocotyle laxiflora N r

Juncus australis N +




Lomandra filiformis N 1 r

Lomandra longifolia N r

Lomandra multiflora N + r

Lomandra sp. N r

Lythrum hyssopifolia N r

Microlaena stipoides N 1 1 3 2

Microtis sp. N r

Oxalis sp. (native) N r r

Panicum effusum N 1 + 2 2

Persicaria prostrata N +

Plantago varia N r

Poa labillardierei N r

Poa sieberiana N + 3 r +

Rumex brownii N + r r +

Scleranthus diander N r r

Sorghum leiocladum N r +

Themeda triandra N 3 3 3 4 4

Tricoryne elatior N +

Vittadinia muelleri N + +

Wahlenbergia luteola N r

Xerochrysum viscosum N r



APPENDIX D: FLORISTIC SCORE METRICS

Plot ID PIPLO1 PIPLO2 PIPLO3 PIPLO4 PIPLO5 PIPLO6

Number of common species 6 15 17 14 12 12

Number of indicator level 1

species

0 2 2 1 3 0

Number of indicator level 2

species

3 5 13 5 4 2

Total number of native species 9 22 32 20 19 14

Number of exotic species 16 16 9 23 16 7

Number of significant weed

species

1 2 0 1 1 1

Site value score 5 17 27 7 10 4



APPENDIX E: PLOT PHOTOGRAPH MONITORING POINTS

Plot PIPL01

Plot PIPL02 Note: The monitoring photograph of PIPL02 was taken from a slightly different angle than the recommended location due to the large Blakely’s Red Gum trunk which would obscure visibility. This slight movement of the photograph location approximately 2 m to the north of the positioning of the marker post at the north-east corner of the plot in the right of the photograph permits the condition of the plot to be seen.



Plot PIPL03

Plot PIPL04



Plot PIPL05

Plot PIPL06


Documents

Pinnacle Nature Reserve Offset, 2015 Monitoring Web viewPinnacle Nature Reserve Offset 2015 Monitoring Report. ... (score