14. sea level rise - kempsey shire · many australian coastal communities. similarly, changes in...
TRANSCRIPT
Boyters Lane Playing Fields and W etlands Plan of ManagementKempsey Shire Council
Australian Wetlands
Ref: BB028
72
14. Sea Level Rise
14.1. The Science
Even a small rise in sea level might be sufficient to cause flooding of low-lying areas aroundmany Australian coastal communities. Similarly, changes in the intensity of droughts andstorm events may increase existing climatic and weather hazards or create new ones.
The best available information on sea level rise comes from the work of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was established by the WorldMeteorological Organisation and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988. TheIPCC work has been reviewed and analysed by CSIRO for Australia.
The main objective of the IPCC was to 'assess scientific, technical and socio-economicinformation relevant to the understanding of human-induced climate change, potentialimpacts of climate change and options for mitigation and adaptation'. Sea-level rise is one ofthe likely outcomes of climate change documented in the three IPCC reports over the lastdecade.
The IPCC’s Third Assessment Report - "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis" - wasprepared by more than one hundred scientific authors assessing the published scientificliterature, with many more contributing to and reviewing the report.
The average global surface temperature has increased by about 0.60C over the past 100years. In Australia, the average temperature has increased by about 0.70C since recordsbegan in 1910. The warmest decade of last century was the 1990s, with 1998 being thewarmest year on record (CSIRO, 2004).
As the planet warms, ice melts and water expands, causing the level of the oceans to rise.During last century, global average sea levels rose between 10 and 20cm. In Australia, therate of global averaged sea-level rise over the last century is estimated to be 1-2mm a year,an order of magnitude larger than the average rate over the previous several thousand years(CSIRO, 2004).
However, the surface temperatures of parts of the southern hemisphere oceans andAntarctica, do not appear to have warmed in the past 100 years. From the limited dataavailable, the frequency of tropical storms, tornadoes and thunderstorms appears not to havechanged either.
Boyters Lane Playing Fields and W etlands Plan of ManagementKempsey Shire Council
Australian Wetlands
Ref: BB028
73
14.2. Projections for the 21st Century
The Third IPCC Report stated that changes in sea-level will be felt through:
Increases in intensity and frequency of storm surges
Increased erosion
Loss of important wetlands and mangroves.
Impact on coastal ecosystems such as coral reefs
Impact on human settlements
A reduction in crop yields around tropical and sub-tropical regions
Decreased water availability in areas already short of water
An increase in the spread of diseases such as malaria and dengue fever; and
Increased instances of flooding as intensity of rainfall increases and sea levels increase.
The positive aspects of a small amount of global warming include:
Increases in crop yields in some mid-latitude regions with temperature increases up totwo to three degrees Celsius;
Potential increase in timber supplies from managed forests;
The IPCC projections are for a sea-level rise of between 9 and 88 cm between 1990 and2100, and a global average surface temperature rise of between 1.4 and 5.8°C. Beyond the21st century, sea level rise will depend strongly on what global greenhouse gas emissionscontrol strategies are adopted (IPCC, 2001).
The rate and magnitude of sea-level change in the next century is also likely to vary fromregion to region around the globe, however there is little agreement on the pattern of sea-level rise. The results vary because there is a range of possibilities for future greenhouse gasconcentrations, environmental responses, population, trade, technology and energy use.
14.3. Impacts on the Boyters Lane Wetlands
The impacts on the Boyters Lane site will be substantial, even in the next two decades, if thehigher IPCC sea level projections of some 88cm total rise up until the year 2100 eventuate.Sea level may rise at up to 8mm per year from some point in the future. At the lowerprojected rate of rise, a little less than 1mm per year, changes will still occur, but less rapidly.
Boyters Lane Playing Fields and W etlands Plan of ManagementKempsey Shire Council
Australian Wetlands
Ref: BB028
74
In the high sea level rise scenario, the estuarine areas are likely to increase in area, with theopen water estuary advancing as mangroves move up-slope into the saltmarsh. Saltmarsh inturn will colonise the upper zones of the higher ground presently occupied by Kikuyu grassand Casuarinas (Swamp Oak). Casuarinas will be lost from the site in this case - there is nohigher ground on the site except for the playing fields.
This process could accelerate over the next two decades. In this scenario, orthodoxrainforest plantings would be lost well before they mature, and risk assessment wouldindicate that a smaller area of rainforest plantings of appropriate species is a prudentapproach.
The lower rate of rise scenario is basically a continuance of the present pattern of a longterm rise of about 1mm per year. The trend of mangrove colonisation of saltmarsh willcontinue. The impacts of a lower range sea level rise will be more significant on the lowerslope zones such as saltmarsh, as seeds colonise upward into higher elevations.
Mangroves will probably maintain their deepwater boundary for several decades. Casuarinaswill similarly survive for several more decades. In this scenario, there is a good argument forrainforest plantings since they may survive for 50 years or more. However, it is highly likelyon present projections that within a century most of the Boyters Lane site will bepredominantly saline.
Boyters Lane Playing Fields and W etlands Plan of ManagementKempsey Shire Council
Australian Wetlands
Ref: BB028
75
15. Community Consultation
Several meetings with the community, Aboriginal people, Agencies and Council staff wereheld during the development of this Draft Management Plan. Meetings were held withresidents Ken Shingleton and Bob Ford on site on 8th July and Ken Shingleton 9th July onsite. This meeting was in conjunction with meeting Ron Kemsley from Council on the 8th July.The history of, and future plans for, the site were discussed.
Thirteen people from the local community and Council attended a meeting on site on the15th
September to discuss the management options available for the property. The communityconsensus was general approval and support for the vision of playing fields in concert withmanaging and rehabilitating the wetland. However, there were concerns regarding thepotential impacts on the wetland system from the use of pesticides and/or fertilisers on theplaying fields. Discussions of specific sports the fields would cater for introduced thepossibility of Little Athletics players using part of the site for throwing sports such as Javelinand Discus.
The management of Teal Lagoon is difficult, with no real consensus among the communitypresent. To remove the berm would accord with the Fisheries Management Act (1994) byremoving a structure that currently limits fish passage, however this is balanced by theThreatened Species Conservation Act (1995) by allowing mangroves to establish and reducehabitat area for threatened birds that frequent the site. The issue of future spring high tidespossibly overtopping Boyters Lane and entering adjoining land was discussed as an effect ofremoving the berm.
Access paths through the wetland were discussed, with a general consensus that the originalroute proposal, through the wetland along the Main Berm, would produce more impacts thanbenefits, through the higher risk of bird disturbance and rubbish accumulation. Routes thattraversed around the wetland (along Spencers Creek and Boyters Lane) were preferred. Assuch, the removal of the Main berm was supported.
A proposal for providing picnic facilities in concert with the proposed regeneration of thesouth east corner of the site and the potential for a walkway through the area was putforward. This action would provide a more accessible fishing area to Spencers Creek for bothlocals and visitors, which could in turn provide tourist dollars to South West Rocks. Ideas foreducational signage throughout the site were discussed, as well as potential researchopportunities for students.
A discussion was held with Aboriginal representatives Gary Morris and Val March atBooroongen Djugun College, Kempsey, on the 25th October regarding the Boyters LaneWetland Management Plan. The main goals, issues and options for the site were explored,with particular emphasis on aspects of most interest to Aboriginal people. These include thereturn of natural conditions to the site wherever possible, the potential involvement ofAboriginal people (especially the College) in the Project such as participation in the siteplanning, interpretive signage, and the planting of bush tucker plants as part of revegetationefforts.
The College supports the initiative of Kempsey Council in the proposed management of thesite, and is keen to partner with Council. The College teaches a relevant course unit
Boyters Lane Playing Fields and W etlands Plan of ManagementKempsey Shire Council
Australian Wetlands
Ref: BB028
76
"Conservation and Land Management", which would be an appropriate way of includingstudents and Aboriginal people in planning and management of the wetlands. The detailedmanagement options for the site will be assessed and a submission would be lodged.
Gary Morris stated that his family (the Drews) had a history of use of the Boyters Lane land.The creek was also known as a productive area for fish and crabs. Support was expressedfor the idea of a picnic area on the bank of Spencers Creek near the bridge, with the provisothat the potential for littering was addressed. Val March also stated as a resident of BoytersLane that the bridge corner is a serious traffic safety hazard, and supports the installation ofa turning lane as part of the road access upgrade for the playing fields.
Plate 12: Community consultation, September 15, 2004
Boy
ters
Lan
e P
layi
ng F
ield
s an
d W
etla
nds
Pla
n o
f M
ana
gem
ent
Kem
pse
y S
hire
Co
unci
l
Aust
ralia
nW
etl
an
ds
Ref
: BB
028
77
16.
Th
e S
trat
eg
y
16.1
. M
anag
emen
t A
reas
Opt
ion
sM
anag
emen
t U
nit
One
Two
Thre
eF
our
1. P
layi
ng fi
elds
Do
noth
ing
Pla
nt b
uffe
r ve
geta
tion
betw
een
field
s an
d w
etla
nd
Issu
e: H
igh-
pow
ered
light
s fo
r tr
ain
ing
and
play
ing
at n
ight
to b
ein
sta
lled
Po
siti
ves:
No
cost
Neg
ativ
es:
Ligh
ts fr
om fi
elds
impa
ct o
n w
etla
nd w
ildlif
e
Po
siti
ves:
Red
uctio
n in
ligh
tpo
llutio
n fr
om fi
elds
.N
egat
ives
: E
stab
lishm
ent c
ost,
poss
ible
inte
rfer
ence
from
tree
sw
ith s
hore
bird
line
-of-s
ight
Ind
icat
ive
Cos
ts:
$10,
000
2. E
ast e
dge
ofpl
ayin
g fie
lds
Do
noth
ing.
Cre
ate
stor
mw
ater
wet
land
with
buffe
r pl
antin
gsR
eveg
etat
eE
ncou
rage
sal
tmar
sh e
xpan
sion
Issu
e: Q
ualit
y an
dqu
antit
y of
run
off f
rom
play
ing
field
s, e
xist
ing
Kik
uyu
gras
s
Po
siti
ves:
low
cos
t.N
egat
ives
: on
goin
g gr
ass
man
agem
ent p
robl
ems,
nut
rient
san
d in
crea
sed
runo
ff fr
om fi
elds
ente
r T
eal L
agoo
n.
Po
siti
ves:
bio
dive
rsity
gai
n,m
anag
e nu
trie
nts
and
peak
flow
sfr
om fi
elds
, mai
ntai
n si
ght d
ista
nce
for w
ater
bird
s, p
rovi
de a
buf
fer
betw
een
wet
land
s an
d pl
ayin
gfie
lds.
Neg
ativ
es: e
stab
lishm
ent a
ndm
aint
enan
ce c
osts
, pot
entia
l AS
Sim
pact
s.In
dic
ativ
e C
osts
: $1
5-25
,000
Po
siti
ves:
som
e fil
terin
g of
nutr
ient
s, re
duce
s on
goin
gm
anag
emen
t cos
ts, b
iodi
vers
ityga
in.
Neg
ativ
es:
redu
ces
sigh
t dis
tanc
efo
r wat
erbi
rds,
impa
cts
onth
reat
ened
spe
cies
.In
dic
ativ
e C
osts
: $1
2,50
0
Po
siti
ves:
incr
ease
d ex
tent
of
enda
nger
ed e
colo
gica
l com
mun
ity,
biod
iver
sity
gai
n, im
prov
ed fi
shha
bita
t, lo
w m
anag
emen
t cos
t.N
egat
ives
: est
ablis
hmen
t and
shor
t-te
rm m
aint
enan
ce c
ost,
pote
ntia
l AS
S im
pact
s, p
ossi
ble
loss
of s
altm
arsh
in lo
ng-t
erm
ifT
eal L
agoo
n be
rm is
rem
oved
or
erod
ed, o
r w
ith s
ea le
vel r
ise.
Ind
icat
ive
Cos
ts:
$3,0
00
Boy
ters
Lan
e P
layi
ng F
ield
s an
d W
etla
nds
Pla
n o
f M
ana
gem
ent
Kem
pse
y S
hire
Co
unci
l
Aust
ralia
nW
etl
an
ds
Ref
: BB
028
78
Man
agem
ent
Uni
tO
ptio
nsO
neTw
oTh
ree
Fou
r3.
Nor
th e
dge
ofpl
ayin
g fie
lds
Do
noth
ing
Enc
oura
ge e
xpan
sion
of
saltm
arsh
Cre
ate
stor
mw
ater
wet
land
Rev
eget
ate
Issu
e: Q
ualit
y an
dqu
antit
y of
run
off f
rom
play
ing
field
s, e
xist
ing
Kik
uyu
gras
s
Po
siti
ves:
no
esta
blis
hmen
t cos
t.N
egat
ives
: on
goin
g m
anag
emen
tco
st, l
ow b
iodi
vers
ity v
alue
, no
biod
iver
sity
gai
n.
Po
siti
ves:
incr
ease
d ex
tent
of
enda
nger
ed e
colo
gica
l com
mun
ity,
biod
iver
sity
gai
n, im
prov
ed fi
shha
bita
t, lo
w m
anag
emen
t cos
t.
Neg
ativ
es: e
stab
lishm
ent a
ndsh
ort-
term
mai
nten
ance
cos
t,po
tent
ial A
SS
impa
cts.
Ind
icat
ive
Cos
ts:
$8,0
00
Po
siti
ves:
bio
dive
rsity
gai
n,re
duce
nut
rient
s en
terin
g es
tuar
y,m
aint
ain
sigh
t dis
tanc
e fo
rw
ater
bird
s.
Neg
ativ
es:
esta
blis
hmen
t cos
ts,
pote
ntia
l AS
S im
pact
s.In
dic
ativ
e C
osts
: $5
0,00
0
Po
siti
ves:
som
e fil
terin
g of
nutr
ient
s, re
duce
s on
goin
gm
anag
emen
t cos
ts, b
iodi
vers
ityga
in.
Neg
ativ
es: I
mpa
cts
on li
ne-o
f-si
ght
Ind
icat
ive
Cos
ts:
$9,0
00
4. T
eal L
agoo
nD
o no
thin
gR
epai
r be
rm r
epla
ce p
ipes
with
drop
boa
rd s
truct
ure
- m
ana
geas
bra
ckis
h la
goon
for
wat
erbi
rds,
con
trol
man
grov
es.
Rem
ove
berm
an
d re
stor
e fu
llyes
tuar
ine
habi
tat
Rep
air a
nd M
aint
ain
Berm
– s
top
tidal
inflo
ws
to c
reat
e fr
eshw
ater
habi
tat.
Issu
e: C
onst
ruct
edbe
rm is
bec
omin
gde
grad
ed, r
educ
edtid
al e
xcha
nge
Po
siti
ves:
low
cos
t, ex
pans
ion
ofm
angr
oves
(m
ediu
m te
rm),
impr
oved
fish
hab
itat.
Neg
ativ
es:
loss
of w
ater
bird
habi
tat (
med
ium
term
), a
ltere
dbi
odiv
ersi
ty, b
erm
failu
re, l
oss
ofbr
acki
sh w
ater
hab
itat (
long
term
),re
duce
d ed
ucat
iona
l val
ues,
impa
cts
on th
reat
ene
d sp
ecie
sha
bita
t, un
cert
aint
y.
Po
siti
ves:
impr
oved
wat
erbi
rdha
bita
t, im
prov
ed fi
sh p
assa
ge,
redu
ced
nutr
ient
acc
umul
atio
n,ed
ucat
iona
l val
ues,
no
impa
ct o
nth
reat
ened
spe
cies
.
Neg
ativ
es: c
ost o
f ong
oing
man
agem
ent,
unce
rtain
tyre
gard
ing
abili
ty to
exc
lude
man
grov
e se
edlin
gs, c
ost o
fm
aint
enan
ce, r
isk
of fu
ture
ber
man
d pi
pe o
r wei
r fa
ilure
, low
er fi
shpa
ssag
e th
an if
ber
m re
mov
ed.
Ind
icat
ive
Cos
ts:
$40-
$60,
000
Po
siti
ves:
low
est
ablis
hmen
t cos
t,m
inim
al m
aint
enan
ce c
ost,
incr
ease
d fi
sh p
assa
ge a
nd fi
shha
bita
t, ed
ucat
iona
l val
ues.
Neg
ativ
es:
alte
red
biod
iver
sity
,re
duce
d w
ater
bird
val
ues,
red
uced
wet
land
div
ersi
ty, i
mpa
cts
onth
reat
ened
spe
cies
hab
itat.
Ind
icat
ive
Cos
ts:
$20,
000
Po
siti
ves:
Pot
entia
l inc
reas
e in
aw
ide
rang
e of
hab
itat v
alue
s, e
.g.
wet
land
pla
nts
for
food
and
nes
tm
ater
ial
Neg
ativ
es: R
educ
ed fi
shpa
ssag
e, a
ltere
d bi
odiv
ersi
tyva
lues
, im
pact
s on
thre
aten
edsp
ecie
s, p
oten
tial w
eed
issu
es(e
.g. h
yaci
nth)
, pos
sibl
e nu
trie
nten
richm
ent f
rom
bird
s.In
dic
ativ
e C
osts
: $3
0,00
0
Boy
ters
Lan
e P
layi
ng F
ield
s an
d W
etla
nds
Pla
n o
f M
ana
gem
ent
Kem
pse
y S
hire
Co
unci
l
Aust
ralia
nW
etl
an
ds
Ref
: BB
028
79
Man
agem
ent
Uni
tO
ptio
nsO
neTw
oTh
ree
Fou
r5.
Wes
tern
ele
vate
dla
ndD
o no
thin
gR
eveg
etat
ion
- m
ix o
f sw
amp
fore
st a
nd r
ainf
ores
t dep
endi
ngon
ele
vatio
n.
Con
stru
ct fr
eshw
ater
wet
land
Rev
eget
ate
with
nat
ive
gras
ses
orse
dges
Issu
e: K
ikuy
uP
osi
tive
s: n
o es
tabl
ishm
ent c
ost,
mai
ntai
n th
reat
ened
spe
cies
habi
tat (
Gra
ss O
wl o
nly)
.N
egat
ives
: on
goin
g m
aint
enan
ceco
sts,
fire
ris
k, lo
w b
iodi
vers
ity,
low
edu
catio
nal v
alue
.
Po
siti
ves:
red
uced
fire
ris
k, lo
won
goin
g m
aint
enan
ce c
ost,
incr
ease
d e
duca
tiona
l val
ue,
incr
ease
d b
iodi
vers
ity, i
ncre
ased
cons
erva
tion
valu
e, th
reat
ened
spec
ies
habi
tat.
Neg
ativ
es: e
stab
lishm
ent c
osts
,in
tens
ive
man
agem
ent r
equi
red
initi
ally
, los
s of
gra
ss o
wl h
abita
t,re
duce
d lin
e-of
-sig
ht d
ista
nce
for
wat
erbi
rds,
pot
entia
l AS
S im
pact
s.In
dic
ativ
e C
osts
: $5
0,00
0
Po
siti
ves:
Incr
ease
d bi
odiv
ersi
tyva
lue,
mai
ntai
n lin
e-of
-sig
htdi
stan
ce fo
r w
ater
bird
s,ed
ucat
iona
l val
ue, c
reat
esth
reat
ened
spe
cies
hab
itat,
com
plem
ent o
ther
wet
land
type
s.
Neg
ativ
es:
esta
blis
hmen
t and
mai
nten
ance
cos
t, po
ssib
leon
goin
g w
eed
man
agem
ent,
rem
oval
of g
rass
ow
l hab
itat,
pote
ntia
l AS
S im
pact
s.In
dic
ativ
e C
osts
: $2
0,00
0
Po
siti
ves:
bio
dive
rsity
gai
ns,
educ
atio
nal v
alue
, mai
ntai
n lin
e-of
-si
ght d
ista
nce
for
wat
erbi
rds,
mai
ntai
ns g
rass
ow
l hab
itat,
crea
tes
thre
aten
ed s
peci
esha
bita
t.
Neg
ativ
es: e
stab
lishm
ent a
ndm
aint
enan
ce c
osts
, ong
oing
wee
dm
anag
emen
t (in
clud
es C
asua
rina
colo
nisa
tion)
, pot
entia
l AS
Sim
pact
s.In
dic
ativ
e C
osts
: $1
0,00
0
6. E
stua
ryD
o no
thin
gR
emov
e co
ncre
te p
ipe
on e
aste
rnin
let.
Issu
e: P
ipe
on e
dge
ofsi
te to
Spe
ncer
s C
reek
Po
siti
ves:
allo
w e
stua
rine
syst
em,
incl
udin
g m
angr
oves
to r
e-es
tabl
ish
post
gra
zing
, no
esta
blis
hmen
t and
mai
nten
ance
cost
.N
egat
ives
: N
one
Po
siti
ves:
res
tori
ng n
atur
alpr
oces
ses.
Neg
ativ
es: s
hort
term
low
leve
ler
osio
n, s
mal
l cos
t.In
dic
ativ
e C
osts
: $2
00
Boy
ters
Lan
e P
layi
ng F
ield
s an
d W
etla
nds
Pla
n o
f M
ana
gem
ent
Kem
pse
y S
hire
Co
unci
l
Aust
ralia
nW
etl
an
ds
Ref
: BB
028
80
Man
agem
ent
Uni
tO
ptio
nsO
neTw
oTh
ree
Fou
r7.
Cen
tral
Inle
tD
o no
thin
gR
epai
r be
rm a
nd m
anag
e tid
alflo
ws
Rem
ove
berm
and
incr
ease
tid
alflo
ws
Rep
air a
nd M
aint
ain
Berm
– s
top
tidal
inflo
ws
to c
reat
e fr
eshw
ater
habi
tat.
Issu
e: M
ain
Ber
m is
erod
ing,
ber
m re
stric
tsna
tura
l tid
al fl
ows,
Junc
us h
as e
stab
lishe
dex
tens
ivel
y so
uth-
east
of b
erm
Po
siti
ves:
low
cos
t, sl
owex
pans
ion
of m
angr
oves
,in
crea
sed
fish
pas
sage
.
Neg
ativ
es:
eros
ion
of b
erm
(lo
ngte
rm),
diff
icul
t to
pred
ict i
mpa
cts
on e
xtan
t sa
ltmar
sh
Po
siti
ves:
mai
ntai
n ex
istin
gha
bita
t, ed
ucat
iona
l ben
efits
, and
mai
nten
ance
of s
ite a
cces
s.
Neg
ativ
es: m
aint
enan
ce c
ost,
redu
ced
fish
pass
age,
ong
oing
man
agem
ent,
poss
ible
cha
nge
inha
bita
t ups
trea
m o
f ber
m, p
oten
tial
AS
S d
istu
rban
ce.
Ind
icat
ive
Cos
ts:
$1,0
00
Po
siti
ves:
impr
oved
fish
pas
sag
e,lo
w c
ost,
expa
nsio
n of
man
grov
es,
poss
ible
exp
ansi
on o
f sal
tmar
sh,
educ
atio
nal v
alue
.N
egat
ives
: po
ssib
le re
duct
ion
inJu
ncus
, unc
erta
inty
, al
tere
dbi
odiv
ersi
ty, i
mpa
cts
on g
rass
ow
l.In
dic
ativ
e C
osts
: $2
,000
Po
siti
ves:
Pot
entia
l inc
reas
e in
aw
ide
rang
e of
hab
itat v
alue
s, e
.g.
wet
land
pla
nts
for
food
and
nes
tm
ater
ial
Neg
ativ
es: R
educ
ed fi
shpa
ssag
e, a
ltere
d bi
odiv
ersi
tyva
lues
, im
pact
s on
thre
aten
edsp
ecie
s, lo
ss o
f sa
ltmar
sh.
Ind
icat
ive
Cos
ts:
$1,0
00
8. C
entr
al e
leva
ted
land
Do
noth
ing
Rev
eget
atio
n -
mix
of s
wam
pfo
rest
, sed
ges
and
rain
fore
stde
pend
ing
on e
leva
tion.
Issu
e: K
ikuy
u gr
ass,
fire
risk
Po
siti
ves:
no
esta
blis
hmen
t cos
t,m
aint
ain
Gra
ss O
wl h
abita
t.
Neg
ativ
es:
ongo
ing
mai
nten
ance
cost
s, fi
re r
isk,
low
bio
dive
rsity
,lo
w e
duca
tiona
l val
ue.
Po
siti
ves:
sol
ves
issu
e of
fire
and
ongo
ing
mai
nten
ance
, inc
reas
eded
ucat
iona
l val
ue, i
ncre
ased
biod
iver
sity
, and
incr
ease
dco
nser
vatio
n va
lue.
Neg
ativ
es: e
stab
lishm
ent c
osts
,in
tens
ive
man
agem
ent r
equi
red
initi
ally
, im
pact
s on
gra
ss o
wl
habi
tat.
Ind
icat
ive
Cos
ts:
$57,
500
Boy
ters
Lan
e P
layi
ng F
ield
s an
d W
etla
nds
Pla
n o
f M
ana
gem
ent
Kem
pse
y S
hire
Co
unci
l
Aust
ralia
nW
etl
an
ds
Ref
: BB
028
81
Man
agem
ent
Uni
tO
ptio
nsO
neTw
oTh
ree
Fou
r9.
Eas
tern
Inle
tD
o no
thin
gR
epai
r be
rm a
nd m
aint
ain
exis
ting
tidal
exc
hang
eR
emov
e be
rm -
incr
ease
tida
lex
chan
ge.
Rep
air b
erm
and
sto
p tid
alin
unda
tion
– cr
eate
fres
hwat
erha
bita
tIs
sue:
Fre
shw
ater
influ
ence
s, M
ain
Ber
mre
stric
ts s
altw
ater
flow
s, o
ne e
xist
ing
150m
m P
VC
pip
e in
berm
Po
siti
ves:
no
esta
blis
hmen
t cos
t,in
crea
sed
fish
pas
sage
sho
uld
berm
fail
(long
-term
).
Neg
ativ
es:
poss
ible
ber
m/p
ipe
failu
re (
long
term
), re
duct
ion
ofw
ater
bird
hab
itat,
redu
ced
wet
land
dive
rsity
, unc
erta
inty
.
Po
siti
ves:
ens
ures
that
exi
stin
gm
anag
emen
t reg
ime
ism
aint
aine
d, e
duca
tiona
l val
ue
ofan
othe
r w
etla
nd t
ype.
Neg
ativ
es: r
estr
ictin
g ex
tent
of
saltm
arsh
and
man
grov
es,
ongo
ing
mai
nten
ance
of b
erm
,re
stric
ted
fish
pass
age,
pot
entia
lA
SS
impa
cts
from
ber
mdi
stur
banc
e.In
dic
ativ
e C
osts
: $1
,000
Po
siti
ves:
low
est
ablis
hmen
t cos
t,in
crea
sed
fish
pas
sage
, pos
sibl
eex
pans
ion
of m
angr
oves
, pos
sib
leex
pans
ion
of s
altm
arsh
.N
egat
ives
: re
duct
ion
of w
ater
bird
habi
tat,
redu
ced
wet
land
div
ersi
ty,
redu
ced
educ
atio
nal v
alue
,un
cert
aint
y, p
oten
tial A
SS
impa
cts
from
ber
m s
oil d
istu
rban
ce,
thre
aten
ed s
peci
es im
pact
s.In
dic
ativ
e C
osts
: $2
,000
Po
siti
ves:
incr
ease
d w
etla
nddi
vers
ity, e
duca
tiona
l val
ues,
retu
rns
to p
revi
ous
man
agem
ent
regi
me
as fr
eshw
ater
wet
land
(alth
ough
not
the
natu
ral
cond
ition
).N
egat
ives
: est
ablis
hmen
t cos
t,al
tere
d bi
odiv
ersi
ty, l
oss
of fi
shha
bita
t, lo
ss o
f sal
tmar
sh, p
oten
tial
AS
S im
pact
s fro
m b
erm
soi
ldi
stur
banc
e.In
dic
ativ
e C
osts
: $1
,000
10. E
ast e
leva
ted
lan
dD
o no
thin
gR
eveg
etat
ion
- m
ix o
f sw
amp
fore
st a
nd r
ainf
ores
t dep
endi
ng o
nel
evat
ion.
Issu
e: K
ikuy
u gr
ass,
fire
risk,
rem
nant
swam
p fo
rest
Po
siti
ves:
no
esta
blis
hmen
t cos
t,m
aint
ain
Gra
ss O
wl h
abita
t.N
egat
ives
: on
goin
g m
aint
enan
ceco
sts,
fire
ris
k, lo
w b
iodi
vers
ity,
low
edu
catio
nal v
alue
.
Po
siti
ves:
sol
ves
issu
e of
fire
and
ongo
ing
mai
nten
ance
, inc
reas
eded
ucat
iona
l val
ue, i
ncre
ased
biod
iver
sity
, inc
reas
ed
cons
erva
tion
valu
e.N
egat
ives
: hig
her
esta
blis
hmen
tco
sts,
inte
nsiv
e m
anag
emen
tre
quire
d in
itia
lly, i
mpa
cts
on g
rass
owl h
abita
t.In
dic
ativ
e C
osts
: $7
7,50
0
Boy
ters
Lan
e P
layi
ng F
ield
s an
d W
etla
nds
Pla
n o
f M
ana
gem
ent
Kem
pse
y S
hire
Co
unci
l
Aust
ralia
nW
etl
an
ds
Ref
: BB
028
82
Man
agem
ent
Uni
tO
ptio
nsO
neTw
oTh
ree
Fou
r11
. Roa
dsid
eve
geta
tion
Do
–not
hing
Mai
ntai
n th
ick
vege
tatio
n an
dpl
ant s
cree
n be
twee
n pe
dest
rian
acce
ss a
nd w
etla
nds/
veg
etat
ion.
Reg
ular
sla
shin
g an
dm
aint
enan
ce.
Mai
ntai
n, b
ut a
lter r
oads
ide
vege
tatio
n, b
y re
mov
ing
man
grov
es, p
lant
ing
scre
en &
enco
urag
ing
nativ
e ru
shes
Issu
e: E
xist
ing
gras
san
d se
dges
are
slas
hed,
thin
scr
een
oftr
ees
at e
nd o
f Tea
lLa
goon
Po
siti
ves:
low
cos
t.N
egat
ives
: po
tent
ial d
istu
rban
ceim
pact
s on
wet
land
s fr
om p
assi
ngtr
affic
, red
uced
bird
hab
itat,
poss
ible
incr
ease
in r
oad
strik
e.
Po
siti
ves:
red
uces
dis
turb
ance
impa
cts,
mai
ntai
ns b
iodi
vers
ityva
lues
.N
egat
ives
: est
ablis
hmen
t cos
ts.
Ind
icat
ive
Cos
ts:
$1,0
00
Po
siti
ves:
impr
oved
vis
ibili
ty fo
rpe
dest
rians
and
mot
oris
ts.
Neg
ativ
es:
loss
of
bird
hab
itat,
poss
ible
incr
ease
in r
oad
strik
e,no
buf
fer t
o w
etla
nd, i
ncre
ased
dist
urba
nce
impa
cts.
Ind
icat
ive
Cos
ts:
$100
/mon
th
Po
siti
ves:
red
uced
man
agem
ent
cost
ass
ocia
ted
with
Tea
l Lag
oon
(red
uctio
n in
man
grov
e pr
opag
ules
to th
e la
goon
), m
aint
ain
dens
esc
reen
for
wat
erbi
rds,
red
uced
dist
urba
nce
impa
cts,
mai
ntai
nbu
ffer
to w
etla
nd.
Neg
ativ
es: r
emov
al o
fm
angr
oves
, inc
reas
ed le
vel o
fE
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct A
sses
smen
tIn
dic
ativ
e C
osts
: $1
,100
Boy
ters
Lan
e P
layi
ng F
ield
s an
d W
etla
nds
Pla
n o
f M
ana
gem
ent
Kem
pse
y S
hire
Co
unci
l
Aust
ralia
nW
etl
an
ds
Ref
: BB
028
83
16.2
. F
acili
ties
Opt
ion
sTy
pe o
f Fac
ility
One
Two
Thre
eF
our
1. P
layi
ng fi
elds
ligh
tsD
o no
thin
gE
nsur
e lig
hts
are
‘env
ironm
enta
l’T
ype
DIs
sue:
Hig
h-po
wer
edlig
hts
for
trai
nin
g an
dpl
ayin
g at
nig
ht to
be
inst
alle
d
Po
siti
ves:
No
cost
Neg
ativ
es:
Inte
nse
light
s fr
omfie
lds
impa
ct o
n w
etla
nd w
ildlif
e
Po
siti
ves:
Red
uctio
n in
ligh
tpo
llutio
n fr
om fi
elds
.N
egat
ives
: Cos
t
2. P
edes
trian
acc
ess
Do
noth
ing
Cen
tral
acc
ess
trac
k w
ith b
ridge
over
Spe
ncer
s C
reek
Eas
tern
acc
ess
track
with
brid
geov
er S
penc
ers
Cre
ek. T
rack
trav
erse
s re
vege
tate
d la
nd a
nded
ges
of w
etla
nds.
Roa
d-si
de a
cces
s tr
ack
acro
ss th
eex
istin
g ro
ad b
ridge
and
alo
ng th
eed
ge o
f Boy
ters
Lan
e, w
ith lo
optr
ack/
s th
roug
h re
vege
tate
d ha
bita
tan
d w
etla
nds.
Issu
e: N
eed
for p
ublic
acce
ss to
pla
ying
fiel
dsas
wel
l as
wet
land
s
Po
siti
ves:
no
cost
, no
impa
cts
on
biod
iver
sity
val
ues.
Neg
ativ
es:
unde
r-ut
ilisi
ng a
nim
port
ant c
omm
unity
ass
et,
redu
ced
com
mun
ity a
war
ene
ssan
d ed
ucat
ion.
Po
siti
ves:
enc
oura
ges
peop
le to
mov
e th
roug
h th
e w
etla
nd,
educ
atio
n a
nd c
omm
unity
awar
enes
s.N
egat
ives
: im
pact
s on
wet
land
biod
iver
sity
, litt
er d
ispo
sal,
acce
ssby
pes
t spe
cies
(dog
s, c
ats)
, hig
hes
tabl
ishm
ent c
ost,
high
leve
l of
dist
urba
nce,
pot
ent
ial A
SS
impa
cts
from
brid
ge a
ndco
nsol
idat
ing
Mai
n B
erm
.In
dic
ativ
e C
osts
: $3
63,4
00
Po
siti
ves:
enc
oura
ges
peop
le to
mov
e th
roug
h th
e w
etla
nd w
ithou
tim
pact
s on
wet
land
val
ues,
educ
atio
n a
nd c
omm
unity
awar
enes
s.N
egat
ives
: h
igh
cost
of b
ridge
and
path
con
stru
ctio
n an
dm
aint
enan
ce, e
ncou
rage
s us
e by
peop
le n
ot in
tere
sted
in th
ew
etla
nd, p
oten
tial A
SS
impa
cts
from
brid
ge, a
cces
s by
pes
tsp
ecie
s, d
istu
rban
ce o
f bird
s.
Ind
icat
ive
Cos
ts:
$304
,420
Po
siti
ves:
low
er b
ridge
cos
t,en
sure
s th
at w
etla
nd w
alkw
ay is
used
mor
e fo
r edu
catio
nal
purp
oses
than
for p
layi
ng fi
eld
acce
ss, l
ower
impa
cts
on w
etla
ndbi
odiv
ersi
ty, i
mpr
oved
edu
catio
nal
valu
e.N
egat
ives
: hig
her
cost
ass
ocia
ted
with
pat
h co
nstr
uctio
n, p
est
spec
ies.
Ind
icat
ive
Cos
ts:
$54,
500-
$84,
705
Boy
ters
Lan
e P
layi
ng F
ield
s an
d W
etla
nds
Pla
n o
f M
ana
gem
ent
Kem
pse
y S
hire
Co
unci
l
Aust
ralia
nW
etl
an
ds
Ref
: BB
028
84
Type
of F
acili
tyO
ptio
ns
One
Two
Thre
eF
our
3. B
ird H
ides
Do
noth
ing
Con
stru
ct o
ne
bird
hid
e ne
ar T
eal
Lago
on.
Con
stru
ct tw
o or
mor
e bi
rd h
ides
Issu
e: P
oten
tial f
orco
mm
unity
enj
oym
ent
and
educ
atio
n in
envi
ronm
enta
l val
ues
Po
siti
ves:
low
cos
t.N
egat
ives
: lo
wer
edu
catio
nal
valu
es, e
ncou
rage
peo
ple
to m
ove
clos
er to
bird
s po
ssib
ly in
crea
sing
dist
urba
nce.
Po
siti
ves:
incr
ease
d ed
ucat
iona
lva
lue,
allo
ws
for
ongo
ing
use
ofth
e w
etla
nd b
y bi
rd w
atch
ers.
Neg
ativ
es: e
stab
lishm
ent a
ndm
aint
enan
ce c
osts
, pot
entia
lva
ndal
ism
.In
dic
ativ
e C
osts
: $5
-10,
000
Po
siti
ves:
pro
vide
s ad
ditio
nal
view
ing
oppo
rtun
ities
.
Neg
ativ
es:
addi
tiona
l con
stru
ctio
nan
d m
aint
enan
ce e
xpen
se,
pote
ntia
l van
dalis
m.
Ind
icat
ive
Cos
ts:
$10-
20,0
00
4. In
terp
retiv
e si
gna
ge
Do
noth
ing
Pro
vide
inte
rpre
tive
sign
age
at k
eylo
catio
ns a
long
the
wal
king
trac
kan
d at
vie
win
g pl
atfo
rm/s
, bird
hide
/s e
tc.
Issu
e: P
oten
tial f
orex
plan
atio
n of
the
envi
ronm
ent i
ncre
ases
enjo
ymen
t an
dun
ders
tand
ing
Po
siti
ves:
no
expe
nditu
rere
quire
d.
Neg
ativ
es:
does
not
sat
isfy
educ
atio
nal a
ims,
und
er-u
tilis
es a
nim
port
ant c
omm
unity
reso
urce
.
Po
siti
ves:
Ass
ists
with
the
educ
atio
n o
f stu
dent
s an
d th
eco
mm
unity
, ens
ures
that
ung
uid
edgr
oups
gai
n kn
owle
dge
abou
tw
etla
nds,
pot
entia
l to
invo
lve
Abo
rigin
al p
eopl
e.
Neg
ativ
es: e
stab
lishm
ent a
ndm
aint
enan
ce c
osts
.In
dic
ativ
e C
osts
: $3
,000
Boy
ters
Lan
e P
layi
ng F
ield
s an
d W
etla
nds
Pla
n o
f M
ana
gem
ent
Kem
pse
y S
hire
Co
unci
l
Aust
ralia
nW
etl
an
ds
Ref
: BB
028
85
Type
of F
acili
tyO
ptio
ns
One
Two
Thre
eF
our
5. V
iew
ing
Pla
tform
Do
noth
ing
Con
stru
ct o
ne
view
ing
pla
tform
near
the
sout
hern
end
of t
hece
ntra
l inl
et a
nd th
e co
nstr
ucte
dw
etla
nd.
Con
stru
ct tw
o or
mor
e pl
atfo
rms.
Issu
e: O
ppor
tuni
ty fo
rbe
tter
obse
rvat
ions
of
wet
land
s
Po
siti
ves:
no
cost
, no
risk
ofon
goin
g di
stur
banc
e im
pact
s.
Neg
ativ
es:
redu
ced
edu
catio
nal
expe
rienc
e, u
nder
-util
ised
reso
urce
.
Po
siti
ves:
Enh
ance
d ed
ucat
iona
lex
perie
nce.
Neg
ativ
es: e
stab
lishm
ent a
ndm
aint
enan
ce c
osts
, ris
k of
dist
urba
nce
to w
ater
fow
l, po
tent
ial
vand
alis
m.
Ind
icat
ive
Cos
ts:
$2,5
00-$
3,00
0
Po
siti
ves:
Enh
ance
d ed
ucat
iona
lex
perie
nce.
Neg
ativ
es:
esta
blis
hmen
t and
mai
nten
ance
cos
ts, r
isk
ofdi
stur
banc
e to
wat
erfo
wl,
pote
ntia
lva
ndal
ism
.In
dic
ativ
e C
osts
: $5
-10,
000
6. V
ehic
le c
ontr
olD
o no
thin
gIn
tegr
ate
traf
fic c
alm
ing
devi
ces
into
roa
d de
sign
.E
nfor
ce a
40k
m/h
r sp
eed
zon
ean
d in
stal
l sig
nage
.Is
sue:
Incr
ease
dve
hicl
e pr
esen
ce a
long
Bo
yter
s La
ne
Po
siti
ves:
no
addi
tiona
l cos
ts.
Neg
ativ
es:
ongo
ing
impa
ct o
fve
hicl
e st
rike
on b
irds
cros
sing
Bo
yter
s La
ne.
Po
siti
ves:
red
uced
roa
d st
rike.
Neg
ativ
es: i
ncre
ased
cos
t, ris
k of
inju
ry to
dri
vers
.
Po
siti
ves:
red
uced
ris
k of
roa
dst
rike,
low
er c
osts
, low
er r
isk
ofin
jury
to p
ublic
.N
egat
ives
: es
tabl
ishm
ent c
ost
7. P
icni
c fa
cilit
ies
Do
noth
ing
Pro
vide
pic
nic
faci
litie
s ne
ar th
eso
uthe
aste
rn c
orne
r of t
he s
iteIs
sue:
Opp
ortu
nity
for
com
mun
ity to
enj
oycr
eek-
side
en
viro
nmen
t
Po
siti
ves:
no
esta
blis
hmen
t or
mai
nten
ance
cos
t.N
egat
ives
: r
educ
ed c
omm
unity
use,
redu
ced
educ
atio
nal
expe
rienc
e, im
pact
s fr
om in
form
alus
e.
Po
siti
ves:
ena
ble
s m
anag
emen
tof
recr
eatio
nal u
se, r
educ
edim
pact
s, e
nhan
ced
wet
land
and
cree
k ex
perie
nce
Neg
ativ
es: e
stab
lishm
ent a
ndm
aint
enan
ce c
ost,
poss
ible
dist
urba
nce
impa
cts
unle
ssfa
cilit
ies
are
appr
opria
tely
desi
gned
, inc
reas
ed n
eed
for
othe
rfa
cilit
ies
such
as
toile
ts.
Ind
icat
ive
Cos
ts:
$2,0
00 e
ach
Boyters Lane Playing Fields and W etlands Plan of ManagementKempsey Shire Council
Australian Wetlands
Ref: BB028
87
17. Research Opportunities
The provision of funds for research students can often be limited as allocation for studies isnot normally a component of Council budgets. However, if Council is prepared to allocatemodest funding in future, as well as seek funding from other sources (see Section 18Funding Opportunities), a greater understanding of the Boyters Lane wetland, and coastalwetlands in general, would ensue.
Prior student research projects such as the Environmental Audit by Walker et. al. (2004)should be followed up. Councils staff could write to appropriate universities (e.g. University ofNew England, Southern Cross University, Newcastle University) with a description of the siteand project, and the potential research opportunities, along with a statement of the matchingservices or resources Council could supply such as transport, GIS data, and survey.
There are various one-off and ongoing research subjects possible on the Boyters Lane site.For example, the ongoing monitoring of habitat change within the Central Inlet following theremoval of a section of the Main Berm; studies on the Grass Owl and the species' use of thesite; techniques for revegetation in low-lying landscapes; fish passage, and water quality, inTeal Lagoon; and monitoring runoff from the playing fields, are just some of the researchopportunities available on this project.
The Booroongen Djugun College in Kempsey conducts a Conservation and LandManagement course. This would provide a good opportunity for teaching students aboutnatural resource management issues, with biological, hydrological and social aspects.
Boyters Lane Playing Fields and W etlands Plan of ManagementKempsey Shire Council
Australian Wetlands
Ref: BB028
88
18. Funding Opportunities
Funding can be made or sought more easily once a management plan is in place, allowingclearly-defined actions or on-ground works to be presented to a funding body forconsideration.
There are various Federal and State programs available to both community and localgovernment groups. For example, Envirofund is the community component of the $3 billionNatural Heritage Trust. Through Envirofund, community groups and individuals can apply forgrants of a few hundred dollars up to $30,000 to tackle local environmental and naturalresource management problems. Typical Envirofund projects include tree planting, fencing,weeding and seed collecting. They also include training and education activities to helpcommunity groups improve their knowledge about the environment and sustainableagriculture. The Australian Government invests $20 million in two Envirofund rounds eachyear, which are held approximately six months apart.
The Fisheries Action Program develops awareness among all resource users and thewider community of fisheries issues, the sources of fisheries habitat problems and theactions required to remedy them. It also develops a sense of ownership in fisheriesresources by all user groups, and responsibility for their sustainable use. Participation in fishhabitat rehabilitation and aquatic pest identification by direct users of the resource isencouraged, as well as the enhancement of sustainable resource use by fishers and'upstream' groups through ensuring that impacts on fish resources and habitats areconsidered in their processes, plans and actions.
The National Landcare Program supports projects that contribute to an integrated programof sustainable management of land, water, vegetation and biological diversity. The Programsupports collective action by communities to manage natural resources sustainably, inpartnership with government. Achieving sustainable agriculture is a major environmental goalfor Australia. The Program encourages on-ground action that will result in integrated andsustainable natural resource management at the farm, catchment and regional level. Supportwill be provided for the development of locally initiated and managed projects addressingcritical issues on public and private land for the public benefit.
Implementation of the Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority’s CatchmentBlueprint is also likely to deliver significant funding over the next decade as investment innatural resource management.
A recreational fishing licence is required to fish in NSW, and revenue raised from licencesales is used in community programs to promote sustainable fishing and research under theSaltwater and Freshwater Recreational Fishing Trusts. Habitat restoration can also befunded by the Fishing Trusts.
Section 94 plans, pursuant to c.94 of the EP&A Act 1979, allows for collections of funds forthe provision, augmentation and embellishment of regional structured and casual openspace. Within Kempsey Shire, Section 94 contributions are sourced from facilities such asroads and trunk stormwater drains within new development areas. There is scope to expandto include the upgrading required as a result of the new development in the existinginfrastructures. Council may also consider the introduction of a Section 94 Plan forcommunity facilities, which would raise funds for appropriate works (KSC, undated).
Boyters Lane Playing Fields and W etlands Plan of ManagementKempsey Shire Council
Australian Wetlands
Ref: BB028
89
Conservation Volunteers carry out projects such as tree planting, seed collection,protection of endangered species, flora and fauna surveys, walking trail construction andmaintenance, fencing and environmental monitoring. Projects must be designed to preserve,protect and restore Australia's natural environment, indigenous or historical cultural heritage,and to encourage a sense of ownership of projects.
Green Corps provides young people aged between 17 and 20 years of age with theopportunity to demonstrate their commitment to preserve and restore Australia’s environmentand heritage. It is a voluntary, transitional youth development scheme designed to provideparticipants with personal and skill development and improved connections with theircommunity.
Green Reserve involves Australian's between the ages of 40 and 65 who receive the full rateof Newstart allowance in local conservation projects. Working in small teams, Green Reservevolunteers contribute 2 days a week for 26 weeks to the project.
There is also the potential to use the services of day-release prisoners from the new gaol,proposed to be situated near Kempsey, for some maintenance tasks such as mangroveseedling removal, and planting maintenance.
Boyters Lane Playing Fields and W etlands Plan of ManagementKempsey Shire Council
Australian Wetlands
Ref: BB028
90
19. Further Investigations
- A comprehensive assessment of the presence of acid sulfate soils where any works areto be carried out (e.g. Playing Fields, stormwater wetland, Central freshwater wetland,walkway, sewer lines) should be conducted before any works start on the site. Amanagement plan for ASS should result from this assessment.
- A vegetation management plan, with a projected cost of about $5000 would becommissioned from contractors. Contractors who are familiar with the area and candemonstrate local experience should be sought.
- Monitoring of physico-chemical parameters in Teal Lagoon.
- More detailed survey of areas the site proposed for management actions, to 100mmcontours.
- Liaise with regional universities to encourage research into fish and invertebratecommunities on the site. Research could also consider how alterations to tidal exchangewould influence fish passage.
Boyters Lane Playing Fields and W etlands Plan of ManagementKempsey Shire Council
Australian Wetlands
Ref: BB028
91
20. Conclusions and Recommendations
The Boyters Lane site can be successfully rehabilitated and managed over time asproductive and biologically diverse wetlands, alongside the construction and use ofplaying fields on the 6ha of land allocated in the southwestern portion.
Council's responsibilities in relation to the site are defined as: compliance with relevantlegislation and policy; and management of the site according to Ecologically SustainableDevelopment principles with particular focus on protecting and enhancing the biodiversityvalues of the site.
The rehabilitation and restoration of the site will be best undertaken by staging theadopted works program, and by following an adaptive management approach, that is,adjust the works program over time in the light of the new information that should flowfrom each stage implemented.
To minimise impacts on the wildlife, the playing fields should be designed to (i) allowminimal flood-light illumination of the rest of the site by installing the correct light type,and a screen of trees, and (ii) allow efficient but site-sensitive drainage ideally through aconstructed stormwater wetland.
The original concept proposal of a footbridge across Spencers Creek linking with accessacross the Main Berm that traverses the three estuarine embayments incurs severalsevere constraints. We recommend elimination of this proposal, with alternative accessroutes to be installed.
Environmental education can be integrated into the project through provision of accesspaths, viewing platforms and a bird hide, and interpretive signage, along with site tours byecologists and Council staff.
Much of the lower-lying area of the site appears to be unsuitable for most rainforestspecies. Revegetation of the site is likely to be most effective as a mix of strategiesincluding natural revegetation of the swamp forest association that was probably native tothe lower elevations of the site; planting of selected rainforest species in trials on higherground and around the playing fields; sedges and native grasses on specific zones nearsensitive bird habitats; and saltmarsh extension where practical.
The three inlets or embayments on the site have been severely modified by changedhydrology and the resultant vegetation responses. The berm used to control theirhydrology is now deteriorating, and berm repair introduces high costs and potential sitedamage. Following assessment of each berm and inlet, it is recommended (i) to removethe Central Inlet berm and allow full estuarine conditions to develop, and (ii) to retain theEastern Inlet berm structure in place whilst observing the impacts of removing the CentralBerm.
The complex problem of deciding whether and how to manage Teal Lagoon in the shortto medium term as a continuing site of high waterbird value, or to remove the berm in theinterests of a rapid return to natural conditions, is a philosophical issue more thanscientific. The issue must be resolved by community and government togetherconsidering and deciding based on the balance of benefits and losses associated with
Boyters Lane Playing Fields and W etlands Plan of ManagementKempsey Shire Council
Australian Wetlands
Ref: BB028
92
each option, in particular the almost certain loss of the substantial waterbird values byremoving the berm.
Impacts on grass owls would be minimised by staging the revegetation works, restoringone area of degraded grassland to sedgeland and retaining extant saltmarsh habitat.
Boyters Lane Playing Fields and W etlands Plan of ManagementKempsey Shire Council
Australian Wetlands
Ref: BB028
93
21. References
ASGAP (The Association of Societies for Growing Australian Plants) (2004)(http://farrer.csu.edu.au/ASGAP/)http://farrer.csu.edu.au/ASGAP/).
Atkinson, G. (1999) Soil Landscapes of the Kempsey-Korogoro Point 1:100 000 Sheet, NSWDepartment of Land and Water Conservation.
Australian Greenhouse Office (2004) Fact Sheet, Global Warming in the 20th Century.Department of Environment and Heritage (http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/index.htmlhttp://www.greenhouse.gov.au/index.html)
CSIRO (2004) Global sea-level rise. CSIRO Marine Research, Australia.(http://www.marine.csiro.au/LeafletsFolder/45slevel/45.htmlhttp://www.marine.csiro.au/LeafletsFolder/45slevel/45.html)
DEH (2004) “Mangroves and Saltmarshes – Muddy Management” in Wetlands Australianewsletter, Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra.
DIPNR (2004) Macleay River (http://www.dlwc.nsw.gov.au/care/water/estuarieshttp://www.dlwc.nsw.gov.au/care/water/estuaries/Inventory/macleay.html)
Dwyer, P. (2002) Floodgate Design Workshop - Proceedings. Workshop, Ballina, NorthernNSW, August 14th 2002.
Eddie, M.W., (2000) Soil Landscapes of the Macksville-Nambucca 1:100 000 Sheet, NSWDepartment of Land and Water Conservation.
Floyd, A.G. 1990. Australian Rainforests in New South Wales, Volumes 1 and 2. NSWNational Parks and Wildlife Service. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton.
Greening Australia (1999) Management Principles To Guide The Restoration AndRehabilitation Of Indigenous Vegetation. Report prepared by the Technical Sub-committee,Greening Australia (NSW) Board.
IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Third Assessment Report,Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. World Meteorological Organization and UnitedNations Environment Programme.
Kempsey Shire Council (1987) Kempsey Local Environment Plan 1987 as amended,Kempsey Shire Council, Kempsey, NSW.
KSC (undated) Future Infrastructure Planning for South West Rocks, Kempsey ShireCouncil.
Low, T (1988); Wild Food Plants of Australia, Angus and Robertson, Sydney.
Macleay Water (2004) Review of Environmental Factors: Proposed Development of VacuumSewer System and Pump Station for Jerseyville Area, Prepared for Kempsey Shire Council.
MacDonald, T. (2003) Protection and Management of Saltmarsh in NSW – a NSW Fisheriesperspective. In Straw, P. (ed) Status and Management of Migratory Shorebirds in Sydney,Sydney Olympic Park Authority.
Boyters Lane Playing Fields and W etlands Plan of ManagementKempsey Shire Council
Australian Wetlands
Ref: BB028
94
MNCCMB (2002) Integrated Catchment Management Plan for the Mid North CoastCatchment, Mid North Coast Catchment Management Board, NSW Department of Land andWater Conservation.
Nambucca Valley Landcare (Undated) Riverbank Restoration for the Nambucca RiverEstuary. A Decision Making Guide. Phone 02 65647838.
NSW Government (1992) Estuary Management Manual. NSW Government, Sydney.
NSW Government (1996) The NSW Wetlands Management Policy. NSW Department ofLand and Water Conservation, Sydney.
NSW Government (1997) NSW Coastal Policy 1997. NSW Government, Sydney.
Pierson, W.L., Bishop, K., Van Senden, D., Horton, P.R. and Adamantidis, C.A. (2002)Environmental Water requirements to Maintain Estuarine Processes. Environmental FlowsInitiative Technical Report, No. 3. Environment Australia, Canberra.
Raine, A. and Gardner, J. (1997). Revegetating Streams in the Macleay Catchment. A Guideto Species and Planting Methods. NSW Dept of Land and Water Conservation, LandcareAustralia, Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation.
RFS (2001) Planning for Bushfire Protection: A Guide for Councils, Planners, FireAuthorities, Developers and Home Owners. NSW Rural Fire Service and Planning NSW,Sydney.
Roy, P. S., Williams, R. J., Jones, A. R., Yassini, I., Gibbs, P. J., Coates, B., West, R. J.,Scanes, P. R., Hudson, J. P. and Nichol, S. (2001) Structure and Function of South-eastAustralian Estuaries. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science; 53, 351-384.
Saenger, P.E. (1994) Mangroves and saltmarshes, In Hammond, L.S and Synnot, R.N. (eds)Marine Biology, Longman Cheshire, Melbourne.
Saintilan, N. and Rogers, K. (2002) The Declining Saltmarsh Resource, In Coast to Coast2002 Conference Proceedings, Coastal CRC, Australia. Held Tweed Heads, NSW
Tulau, M.J. (2002) Agricultural Drainage in Acid Sulfate Soil Backswamps in New SouthWales, Australia - Technical, Regulatory and Policy Responses. Department of Land andWater Conservation, Sydney.
Tulau, M.J. and Naylor, S.D. (1999) Acid Sulfate Soil Management Priority Areas in theLower Macleay Floodplain. Report. Department of Land and Water Conservation, Sydney.
Walker, G., Bromhead, B. and Kinsela, A. (2004) Boyters Lane Wetland Audit, Prepared forKempsey Shire Council.
Wood, M. (2002) Floodgate Design Workshop - Proceedings. Workshop, Ballina, NorthernNSW, August 14th 2002.
Boyters Lane Playing Fields and W etlands Plan of ManagementKempsey Shire Council
Australian Wetlands
Ref: BB028
95
Appendix 1
Complete bird list of sightings at or near the Boyters Lane site. Sightings by Mr KenShingleton, June 1991 to April 2004.
Species Name Common Name Species Name Common NameCoturnix pectoralis Stubble Qual Lopholaimus antarcticus Topknot Pigeon
Coturnix ypsilophora Brown Quail Calyptorhynchus lathami Glossy Black-Cockatoo
Dendrocygna eytoni Plumed Whistling-Duck Cacatua roseicapilla Galah
Oxyura australis Blue-bil led Duck Cacatua tenuirostris Long-billed Corella
Cygnus atratus Black Swan Cacatua sanguinea Little Corella
Chenonetta jubata Australian Wood Duck Cacatua galerita Sulphur Crested Cockatoo
Anas supercil iosa Pacific Black Duck Trichoglossus haematodus Rainbow Lorikeet
Anas rhynchotis Australasian Shoveler Trichoglossus chlorolepidotus Scaly-Breasted Lorikeet
Anas gracilis Grey Teal Platycercus eximius Eastern Rosella
Anas castanea Chestnut Teal Cuculus pallidus Pallid Cuckoo
Malacorhynchus membranaceus Pink-eared Duck Cacomantis variolosus Brush Cuckoo
Aythya australis Hardhead Cacomantis flabelliformis Fan-Tailed Cuckoo
Tachybaptus novaehollandiae Australasian Grebe Chrysococcyx basalis Horsefields Bronze Cuckoo
Poliocephalus urinatrix Hoary-headed Grebe Chrysococcyx lucidus Shinning Bronze Cuckoo
Anhinger melanogaster Darter Eudynamys scolopacea Common Koel
Phalacrocorax melanoleucos Little Pied Cormorant Scythrops novaehollandiae Channel Bil led Cuckoo
Phalacrocorax sulcirostris Little Black Cormorant Centropus phasianinus Pheasant Coucal
Phalacrocorax carbo Great Cormorant Hirundapus caudacutus White-Throated Needletail
Pelecanus conspicil latus Australian Pelican Dacelo novaeguineae Laughing Kookaburra
Egretta novaehollandiae White-faced Heron Todiramphus pyrrhopygia Red-backed Kingfisher
Egretta garzetta Little Egret Todiramphus sanctus Sacred Kingfisher
Ardea pacifica White-necked Heron Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater
Ardea alba Great Egret Eurystomus orientalis Dollarbird
Ardea intermedia Intermediate Egret Malurus cyaneus Superb Fairy Wren
Ardea ibis Cattle Egret Malurus lamberti Varigated Fairy Wren
Nycticorax caledonicus Nankeen Night Heron Malurus melanoc ephalus Red-Backed Fairy Wren
Botaurus poicilopilus Ausralasian Bittern Pardalotus striatus Striated Pardalote
Plegadis falcinellus Glossy Ibis Gerygone mouki Brown Gerygone
Threskiornis molucca Australian White Ibis Gerygone levigaster Mangrove Gerygone
Threskiornis spinicoll is Straw-necked Ibis Acanthiza pusila Brown Thornbil l
Platalea regia Royal Spoonbill Acanthiza chrysorrhoa Yellow-rumped Thornbill
Platalea flavipes Yellow-billed Spoonbill Acanthiza nana Yellow Thornbill
Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus Black-necked Stork Anthochaera carunculata Red Wattlebird
Pandion haliaetus Osprey Anthochaera chrysoptera Little Wattlebird
Aviceda subcristata Pacific Baza Acanthagenys rufogularis Spiney-cheecked Honeyeater
Elanus axillaris Black-Shouldered Kite Plectorhyncha lanceolata Striped Honeyeater
Lophoictinia isura Square-tailed Kite Philemon corniculatus Noisy Friarbird
Haliaster sphenurus Whistling Kite Philemon citreogularis Little Friarbird
Haliaster indus Brahminy Kite Manorina melanocephala Noisy Miner
Haliaeetus leucogaster White-Bellied Sea Eagle Meliphaga lewinii Lewins Honeyeater
Circus approximans Swamp Harrier Lichenostomus chrysops Yellow-faced Honeyeater
Boyters Lane Playing Fields and W etlands Plan of ManagementKempsey Shire Council
Australian Wetlands
Ref: BB028
96
Species Name Common Name Species Name Common NameAccipiter fasciatus Brown Goshawk Lichmera indistincta Brown Honeyeater
Accipiter cirrhocephallus Collared Sparrowhawk Phylidonyris nigra White-Cheecked Honeyeater
Aquila audax Wedge-tailed Eagle Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris Eastern Spinebill
Hieraaetus morphnoides Little Eagle Myzomela sanguinolenta Scarlet Honeyeater
Falco longipennis Australian Hobby Pachycephala pectoralis Golden Whistler
Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon Pachycephala rufiventris Rufous Whistler
Falco cenchroides Nankeen Kestrel Colluricincla harmonica Grey Shrike Thrush
Grus rubicunda Brolga Myiagra rubecula Leaden Flycatcher
Gallirallus philippensis Buff-Banded Rail Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher
Rallus pectoralis Lewins Rail Grallina cyanoleuca Magpie-lark
Porzana fluminea Australian Spotted Crake Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail
Porzana tubuensis Spotless Crake Rhipidura fuliginosa Grey Fantail
Porphyrio porphyrio Purple Swamphen Rhipidura leucophrys Willie Wagtail
Gallinula tenebrosa Dusky Moorhen Dicrurus bracteatus Spangled Drongo
Fulica atra Eurasian Coot Coracina novaehollandiae Black-Faced Cuckoo Shrike
Gallinago hardwickii Latham's Snipe Lalage suerii White-winged Triller
Limosa limosa Black-tailed Godwit Oriolus sagittatus Olive Backed Oriole
Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit Sphecotheres viridis Figbird
Numenius minutus Little Curlew Artamus leucorynchus White-Breasted Woodswallow
Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel Cracticus torquatus Grey Butcherbird
Numenius madagascariensis Eastern Curlew Cracticus nigrogularis Pied Butcherbird
Tringa stagnatilis Marsh Sandpiper Gymnorhina tibicen Australian Magpie
Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank Strepera grucelena Pied Currawong
Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper Corvus tasmanicus Forest Raven
Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper Corvus orru Torresian Crow
Calidris canutus Red Knot Sericulus chrysocephalus Regent Bowerbird
Calidris ruficoll is Red-necked Stint Anthus novaeseelandiae Richard's Pipit
Calidris acuminata Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Neochima temporalis Red-Browed Finch
Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper Lonchura castaneothorax Chestnut-Breasted Mannikin
Irediparra gall inacea Comb-crested Jacana Dicaeum hirundinaceum Mistletoebird
Mimantopus himantopus Black-winged Stilt Hirundo neoxena Welcome Swallow
Pluvialis fulva Pacific Golden Plover Hirundo nigicans Tree Martin
Elseyornis melanops Black-fronted Dotterel Hirundo ariel Fairy Martin
Erythrogonys cinctus Red-kneed Dotterel Acrocephalus stentoreus Clamorous Reed-Warbler
Vanellus miles Masked Lapwing Megalurus timoriensis Tawny Grassbird
Larus novaehollandiae Silver Gull Megalurus gramineus Little Grassbird
Streptopelia chinensis Spotted Turtle Dove Cristicola exil is Golden-Headed Cisticola
Columba leucomela White-Headed Pigeon Zosterops lateralis Silvereye
Ocyphaps lophotes Crested Pigeon Sturnus vulgaris Common Starling
Geopelia striata Peaceful Dove Acridotheres tristis Common Myna
Geopelia humeralis Bar Shouldered Dove
Boyters Lane Playing Fields and W etlands Plan of ManagementKempsey Shire Council
Australian Wetlands
Ref: BB028
97
Appendix 2
1. Acid Sulphate Soils Report
2. Water Quality Report
3. Sediment Size and Texture Analysis
RE
SU
LT
S O
F A
CID
SU
LP
HA
TE
SO
IL A
NA
LY
SIS
(P
ag
e 1
of
1)
1 sa
mple
sup
plie
d by
Aus
tral
ian W
etla
nds
on 2
7th O
ctob
er, 20
04 -
Lab
. Jo
b No.
E28
67Ana
lysis
requ
este
d by
Dav
id P
ont.
Po
ten
tia
l A
cid
ity
Act
ua
l A
cid
ity
Re
du
ced
In
org
an
icT
ota
l A
ctu
al
La
b.
Bu
lk
Ne
utr
ali
sin
gN
eu
tra
lis
ing
Ne
utr
ali
sin
g o
f A
ctu
al
CO
MM
EN
TS
Sa
mp
le S
ite
Te
xtu
reS
ulp
hu
rT
AA
Aci
dit
y (
TA
A)
De
nsi
tyC
alc
ula
tio
nC
alc
ula
tio
na
nd
Po
ten
tia
l A
SS
(% c
hro
miu
m r
ed
uci
ble
S)
pH
mo
le /
Kg
ton
ne
DW
/m
3K
g L
ime
/m
3K
g L
ime
/m
3K
g L
ime
/m
3
(no
te 9
)(%
Sc
r) (
not
e 2
)(b
as
ed
on
%S
cr)
(ba
se
d o
n T
AA
)(s
ee
no
te 1
0 )
Bo
yte
rs S
oil
Med
ium
0.00
24.
580.
025
1.34
0.1
1.6
1.7
NO
TAct
ual
or Pot
entia
l AS
SR
efe
r N
ote
6 &
7R
efe
r N
ote
6 &
7R
efe
r N
ote
6,
7 &
10
NO
TE
:
1 -
All
anal
ysis
is
Dry
We
igh
t (D
W)
- sa
mp
les
drie
d a
nd g
rou
nd i
mm
edia
tely
up
on a
rriv
al (
unle
ss s
up
plie
d d
ried
an
d g
rou
nd)
2 -
Sam
ple
s an
alys
ed
by
PO
CA
S m
eth
od
(ie
Per
oxi
de O
xida
tion
- C
om
bin
ed
Aci
dit
y a
nd
Sul
ph
ate
- V
ersi
on
3 u
pd
ated
pu
blis
hed
met
hod
) an
d 'C
hro
miu
m R
ed
uci
ble
Su
lph
ur'
te
ch
niq
ue
(S
cr -
Met
hod
22
B)
3 -
Met
hod
s fr
om
Sto
ne,
Y.
Ah
ern
CR
, a
nd B
lun
den
B (
1998
). A
cid
Su
lph
ate
So
il M
an
ua
l 1
99
8.
AS
SMA
C,
Wol
lon
gbar
, N
SW
.
4 -
To
tal
carb
on a
nd
tota
l su
lph
ur
dete
rmin
ed u
sin
g a
LE
CO
CN
S 2
000
ana
lyse
r
5 -
Bu
lk d
ens
ity
wa
s d
eter
min
ed
imm
edi
ate
ly o
n a
rriv
al t
o la
bor
ato
ry (
insi
tu b
ulk
den
sity
is
pre
ferr
ed)
6 -
Neu
tral
isin
g R
equ
irem
ent
(b
ased
on
NA
GP
, ch
rom
ium
red
ucib
le s
ulp
hur
or
tota
l su
lph
ur)
= K
g H
2S
O4/t
onn
e x
bu
lk d
ensi
ty
7 -
Th
e n
eutr
alis
ing
req
uire
men
t do
es n
ot
incl
ude
a s
afe
ty m
arg
in f
or c
om
ple
te n
eu
tra
lisa
tion
(a
fact
or o
f 1
.5 is
oft
en r
eco
mm
end
ed)
8 -
Co
ndu
ctiv
ity
1 d
S/m
= 1
mS
/cm
= 1
000
µS
/cm
9 -
For
Tex
ture
: co
arse
= s
ands
to
loam
y sa
nd
s; m
edi
um
= s
an
dy l
oam
s to
lig
ht
cla
ys;
fin
e =
med
ium
to
he
avy
cla
ys a
nd s
ilty
clay
s
10
- N
eu
tra
lisa
tion
Cal
cula
tion
fo
r n
eutr
alis
atio
n o
f ac
tual
an
d p
ote
ntia
l aci
dity
(ie
. su
m o
f ca
lcu
lati
on
bas
ed o
n C
rs a
nd T
AA
)1
1 -
AN
C=
Aci
d N
eu
tra
lisin
g C
apac
ity
of
the
Soil
(Det
ecti
on
limit
of
0.05
% C
aC
O3 E
qu
ival
ent
)- (
this
pro
ced
ure
is
curr
entl
y N
OT
NA
TA
re
gist
ere
d)
12
- N
AG
P=
Ne
t A
cid
Ge
nera
tin
g P
ote
ntia
l= (
31.3
*%
S ox)
-(10
*%A
NC
) (
Fro
m M
ulv
ey,
199
3)
(Cla
ssif
ica
tio
n o
f p
ote
nti
al
acid
su
lph
ate
ma
teri
al i
f: c
oa
rse
Scr
=0
.03
%S
; m
edi
um
Scr
=0
.06
%S
; fi
ne
Scr
=0
.1%
S)
(eq
uiv
ale
nt
con
ve
rsio
ns
- 0
.03
%S
= 0
.01
9 m
ole
/ K
g;
0.0
6%
S =
0.0
37
mo
le/
Kg
; 0
.1%
S =
0.0
62
mo
le/
Kg
) *
Pro
ject
s th
at d
istu
rb >
10
00 t
on
nes
of
AS
S s
oils
with
=0
.03%
S,
a d
eta
iled
man
agem
en
t p
lan
may
be
req
uir
ed.
RE
: C
las
sifi
ca
tio
n a
s a
ctu
al
or
po
ten
tia
l a
cid
su
lph
ate
so
il
(AS
S)
(ba
sed
on
%S
cr
res
ult
s)
chec
ked
: ..
....
....
....
...
RES
ULTS
OF W
AT
ER
AN
ALY
SIS
(P
ag
e 1
of
1)
1 s
ample
supplie
d b
y A
ustr
alia
n W
etlan
ds
on t
he
27th
Oct
ober
, 2004
- L
ab. Jo
b N
o. E2866
Anal
ysis
req
ues
ted
by
Davi
d P
ont.
Sa
mp
le 1
PA
RA
ME
TE
RM
ET
HO
DS
REF
ER
EN
CE
Bo
yte
rs W
ate
r
Job
No.
E28
66/
1
pH
APH
A 4
500-
H+-B
7.64
CO
ND
UC
TIV
ITY
(E
C)
(dS
/m)
APH
A 2
510-
B20
.60
TO
TA
L D
ISSO
LVE
D S
ALT
S (
mg
/L)
calc
ulat
ion
usin
g EC
x 6
8014
,008
CH
LO
RO
PH
YL
L 'a
' (m
g/
L)**
APH
A 1
0200
-H0.
131
SA
LIN
ITY
(p
pt)
SA
LIN
ITY
MET
ER12
.8
No
tes:
1.T
otal
Ava
ilabl
e m
etal
s -
sam
ples
aci
difie
d w
ith n
itric
aci
d an
d th
en f
ilter
ed th
roug
h 0.
45µm
cel
lulo
se a
ceta
te
2. 1
mg/
L (m
illig
ram
per
litr
e) =
1 p
pm (
part
per
mill
ion)
= 1
000
µg/L
(m
icro
gram
s pe
r lit
re)=
100
0 pp
b (p
art
per
billi
on)
3. F
or c
ondu
ctiv
ity -
1 d
S/m
= 1
mS/
cm =
100
0 µS
/cm
4. A
naly
sis
perf
orm
ed a
ccor
ding
to
APH
A, 1
998,
“St
anda
rd M
etho
ds f
or t
he E
xam
inat
ion
of W
ater
& W
aste
wat
er”,
20t
h Ed
ition
, exc
ept w
here
sta
ted
othe
rwis
e.
5. Analy
sis
cond
uct
ed
betw
een
sam
ple
arr
ival d
ate
and R
epor
t pro
visi
on d
ate
6. **
den
otes
thes
e te
st p
roce
dure
s ar
e a
s ye
t not
NATA r
egis
tere
d b
ut q
ual
ity c
ontr
ol da
ta is
ava
ilabl
e
Repor
t Pag
e 2
of 2
chec
ked:
.........
......
Boyters Lane Playing Fields and W etlands Plan of ManagementKempsey Shire Council
Australian Wetlands
Ref: BB028
102
Appendix 3
Boyters Lane Wetlands and Playing Fields Management Plan – Fauna Component
Report by Sandpiper Environmental
BOYTERS LANE PLAYING FIELDSAND WETLANDS MANAGEMENT
PLAN.
FAUNA COMPONENT
PREPARED BY SANDPIPER ENVIRONMENTALFOR AUSTRALIAN WETLANDS
15 APRIL 2005
Sandpiper Environmental
ABN: 47 327 438 027Ref No: A040507
Boyters Lane Playing Fields andWetlands Management Plan.
Fauna Component
15 APRIL 2005
© Sandpiper Environmental 2005PO Box 401
ALSTONVILLE NSW 2477
Approved by:___________________ Project Manager
This report has been prepared in accordance with the scope of services described in theproposal submitted by Sandpiper Environmental (ABN 47 327 438 027) to AustralianWetlands. The report relies upon data, surveys, measurements and results taken at orunder the particular times and conditions specified herein. Any findings, conclusions orrecommendations only apply to the aforementioned circumstances and no greater relianceshould be assumed or drawn by Australian Wetlands. Furthermore, the report has beenprepared solely for use by Australian Wetlands and Sandpiper Environmental accepts noresponsibility for its use by other parties.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOR AUSTRALIAN WETLANDS............................................................................. 1
15 APRIL 2005 .............................................................................................................. 1
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. 4
1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 1
1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 11.2 STUDY AREA ................................................................................................... 2
1.2.1 Subject site .................................................................................................. 21.2.2 Ecological context....................................................................................... 2
1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL .............................................................. 4
2 REVIEW OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............................................ 4
2.1 AUDIT REPORT................................................................................................ 42.2 ATLAS OF NSW WILDLIFE............................................................................ 42.3 HISTORICAL BIRD SURVEYS....................................................................... 52.4 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 6
3 FIELD ASSESSMENT......................................................................................... 6
3.1 METHODS ......................................................................................................... 63.1.1 Fauna Habitat Assessment.......................................................................... 63.1.2 Baseline Field Survey ................................................................................. 63.1.3 Aerial Photograph Interpretation (API) ..................................................... 7
3.2 RESULTS ........................................................................................................... 73.2.1 Fauna Habitat Assessment.......................................................................... 73.2.2 Baseline Field Survey ............................................................................... 10
3.3 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................... 103.3.1 Summary of Fauna Values ........................................................................ 103.3.2 Long-term Viability of Extant Habitats..................................................... 11
4 REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF ISSUES.......................................................... 12
4.1 REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 124.2 ANALYSIS....................................................................................................... 13
4.2.1 Access........................................................................................................ 134.2.2 Habitat Modification................................................................................. 154.2.3 Site Management....................................................................................... 16
4.3 ISSUE PRIORITISATION............................................................................... 17
5 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS AND OBJECTIVES ......................................... 19
5.1 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS............................................................................ 195.1.1 Wetlands and Elevated Land .................................................................... 195.1.2 Facilities ................................................................................................... 205.1.3 Important Considerations ......................................................................... 21
5.2 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES..................................................................... 27
6 PREFERRED MANAGEMENT OPTIONS.................................................... 28
7 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................. 29
8 REFERENCES.................................................................................................... 31
APPENDIX ONE ........................................................................................................ 32
CONCEPT PLAN OF THE BOYTERS LANE WETLAND PREPARED BYKEMPSEY SHIRE COUNCIL ................................................................................. 32
APPENDIX TWO ....................................................................................................... 34
BIRD SPECIES RECORDED ON THE SUBJECT SITE BY............................... 34
MR K. SHINGLETON............................................................................................... 34
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Threatened fauna recorded from the locality of the subject site. 5
Table 4.1: Prioritisation of the risk posed to fauna from the issues identified by the
Boyters Lane Wetland Working Group and Coastal and Estuary Committee. 18
Table 5.1: Proposed management options for each management units within the
Boyters Lane Wetland complex. 22-24
Table 5.2: Management options for infrastructure required to support the proposed
use of the subject site. 25-26
Table 6.1: Preferred management options for each land management unit. 28
Table 6.2 Preferred management options for each type of facility 29
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: The study area, with habitat types and site names included. 3
Sandpiper Environmental
15 April 2005/Final Report/A030407 1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Sandpiper Environmental was subcontracted by Australian Wetlands to assess the faunaissues associated with the preparation of the Boyters Lane Wetland and Playing Fields Planof Management. The Plan of Management (POM) is being prepared for Kempsey ShireCouncil. The primary purpose of the plan is to “identify Councils responsibilities and defineappropriate management strategies for both the wetland/estuary and playing field areas andproposed walkway” (Kempsey Shire Council 2004).
The aim of this report is to identify and discuss the vertebrate fauna issues associated withthe management of the Boyters Lane Wetland for inclusion into the POM. The report isdivided into six sections, Introduction, review of Background Information, Field Assessment,Review and Analysis of Issues, Management Options and Objectives and PreferredManagement Options and Recommendations.
The objectives of the report include:
Undertake a field survey to assess the type and distribution of fauna habitats, defineimportant habitat features, important habitats and the long-term viability of habitat forfauna.
Describe the current fauna values of the Boyters Lane Wetland.
Review and analyse the issues identified by the Boyters Lane Wetland Working Groupand the Coastal and Estuary Management Committee that relate to fauna.
Prioritise issues concerning fauna, in accordance with the level of risk that they poseto management of fauna and fauna habitat.
Review the fauna component of the Environmental Audit of the subject site (Walker etal. undated) to determine if the audit provides an appropriate level of detail to preparemanagement strategies for fauna.
Map the distribution of fauna habitats based on the results of the site analysis, airphoto interpretation and review and analyse supporting documents that pertain tofauna.
Identify and evaluate options for wetland management and assess the positive andnegative benefits of the various options for fauna.
Prepare management objectives that address the range of fauna issues identified by
the Boyters Lane Wetland Working Group and the Coastal and Estuary ManagementCommittee.
Prepare a list of management options and provide information on costs, benefits,
limitations and impacts associated with each option.
Sandpiper Environmental
15 April 2005/Final Report/A030407 2
1.2 STUDY AREA
1.2.1 Subject site
The subject site is situated on the floodplain of the Macleay River, near the town of SouthWest Rocks on the mid-north coast of NSW. The site covers a total area of 25.8ha andincludes an area of estuarine wetland known as the Boyters Lane Wetland. The site isbordered to the south by Boyters Lane, to the north and east by Spencers Creek and to thewest by agricultural land (grazing). Freshwater wetlands occur on the southern side ofBoyters Lane. The site is comprised of two lots DP 754396 and DP 832777.
To assist with the discussion of wetland values and management descriptive names havebeen developed for various areas within the subject site (Figure 1.1). These names havebeen developed for this report only and it is suggested that Council may wish to seekcommunity input in developing descriptive names should the Plan of Management beadopted.
1.2.2 Ecological context
Boyters Lane wetland is tidally influenced, with a direct connection to Spencers Creek, whichinturn is linked to the Macleay River. The wetland is characterised by several parallel tidalinlets, which were most likely historical creek channels. ‘Fingers’ of elevated land separateeach tidal inlet. A bund wall extends from near the northern edge of the site across each ofthe inlets (Figure 1.1). Tidal movement through the bund walls is restricted by 15cm diameterPVC pipes, although the wall across Juncus Inlet has been eroded to create a narrow tidalchannel. Full inundation of all inlets occurs during spring high tides.
Grassland vegetation dominates the elevated land and covers the southwestern third of thesite and the southeastern corner (Figure 1.1). Areas of grassland may become waterloggedafter prolonged rainfall. The Boyters Lane Wetland has not been mapped under StateEnvironmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 14. The nearest SEPP 14 wetland (wetlandNo.443) is situated on the northern side of Spencers Creek.
Definitive information on the management of the subject site is unavailable, although someinformation was obtained from discussion with long-term residents. The wetland has a long
history of modification. Bund walls were initially constructed in the 1960’s, and shortly afterconstruction tidal flow was halted. This resulted in a change from an estuarine system to apredominantly fresh or brackish system with limited or no tidal exchange through the bundwalls. It was during this period that mangrove dieback occurred in Teal Lagoon.
PVC pipes were installed in the mid 1990’s to restore some tidal exchange. This system hasoperated until the present time, although deterioration of pipes and the bund wall has resultedin increased tidal exchange in Teal lagoon and Juncus Inlet. The site has been grazed by
cattle for an extended period. Grazing has influenced the distribution and extent of wetlandvegetation.
Sandpiper Environmental
15 April 2005/Final Report/A030407 4
1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
Kempsey Shire Council proposes to construct sports fields on the area of grassland in thesouthwestern third of the subject site (Figure 1.1). The proposed sports fields will cover 6haand include lights for night training. Vehicle access to the sports fields would be via Boyters
Lane. Council has a preliminary proposal to construct a pedestrian walkway across thewetland to link South West Rocks directly with the sports fields (Appendix 1).
The pedestrian access way would also be used for the purpose of environmental education,with viewing platforms and interpretive material integrated into the access way design. It isproposed to revegetate elevated land between the inlets and in the southeastern corner of thesite. A pumping station is also proposed in the southeastern corner of the site.
2 REVIEW OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2.1 AUDIT REPORT
The purpose of reviewing the audit report was to assess the adequacy of informationcontained within the report for use in preparing management strategies for fauna. Whilst theaudit report is appropriate for the purpose for which it was prepared it contains limitedinformation to assist with the preparation of management strategies for fauna. Apart fromsome general information on invertebrates the report does not contain any new fauna recordsor information on the value of the subject site for fauna. The authors readily acknowledge thelimitations of the report with respect to fauna (refer to sections 3.2, 6.2 and 6.3.1 of the audit
report). One of the recommendations of the audit report (section 6.3.1) was to prepare acomprehensive fauna audit before assessing any development proposals.
2.2 ATLAS OF NSW WILDLIFE
A search was undertaken of the Atlas of NSW Wildlife to obtain historical and recent fauna
species records for the locality (5km radius surrounding the subject site). The Atlas searchencompassed an area of 100km2 surrounding the subject site. The search was dated 27 July2004. The search revealed records for 30 threatened fauna species (Table 2.1). Many of thethreatened species recorded in the locality are unlikely to utilise the subject site at present.The list of threatened species is indicative of threatened species that may utilise the site ifappropriate habitat is provided. For example, revegetation of elevated land with locallyendemic fruiting trees would provide habitat for fruit-doves and flying foxes, whilst forestedhabitat in general would provide a food resource for insectivorous bats and square-tailed
kites. Revegetation and rehabilitation of grassland is likely to benefit a wide range of species.
Sandpiper Environmental
15 April 2005/Final Report/A030407 5
Table 2.1: Threatened fauna recorded from the locality of the subject site.
Species Name Common Name StatusTSC
LastRecord
No.Records
AMPHIBIANS
Crinia tinnula Wallum Froglet V 15/3/03 11
REPTILES
Caretta caretta Loggerhead Turtle E1 1/3/97 2
Dermochelys coriacea Leathery Turtle V 9/12/00 1
MAMMALS
Phascolarctos cinereus Koala V 30/6/99 1
Phascogale tapoatafa Brush-tailed Phascogale V 15/2/03 11
Syconycteris australis Common Blossom-bat V 22/1/98 2
Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed Flying-fox V 5/3/03 22
Petaurus norfolcensis Squirrel Glider V 15/3/03 29
Vespadelus troughtoni Eastern cave Bat V 19/5/00 1
Mormopterus norfolcensis Eastern Freetail Bat V 25/2/02 1
Chalinalobus nigrogriseus Hoary-wattled Bat V 17/10/01 1
Scoteanax rueppelli i Greater Broad-nosed Bat V 11/10/94 1
Miniopterus australis Little Bentwing-bat V 26/10/94 3
Australian Fur Seal V 23/7/01 1
Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback Whale V 13/10/99 2
BIRDS
Anseranas semipalmata Magpie Goose V 20/1/92 1
Ixobrychus flavicoll is Black Bittern V 5/3/03 1
Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus Black-necked Stork E1 9/5/01 7
Lophoictinia insura Square-tailed Kite V 27/7/00 2
Pandion haliaetus Osprey V 5/3/03 35
Limosa limosa Black-tailed Godwit V 18/4/00 1
Irediparra gall inacea Comb-crested Jacana V 28/9/00 2
Haematopus longirostris Pied Oystercatcher V 19/7/01 6
Haematopus fuliginosus Sooty Oystercatcher V 5/3/03 8
Sterna albifrons Little Tern E1 24/10/00 1
Ptilinopus magnificus Wompoo Fruit-Dove V 3/9/01 4
Ptilinopus regina Rose-crowned Fruit-Dove V 17/11/01 2
Calyptorhynchus lathami Glossy Black-Cockatoo V 15/3/03 37
Ninox strenua Powerful Owl V 23/10/00 1
Coracina lineata Barred Cuckoo-shrike V 1/12/99 1
2.3 HISTORICAL BIRD SURVEYS
A local ornithologist (Mr Ken Shingleton) has been surveying birds on the subject site on aregular basis for the past 12 years. These surveys have provided a good indication of theconservation value of the Boyters Lane Wetland for waterbirds. During the survey period 143species of bird have been recorded on or near the subject site (Appendix 2), including ninespecies listed on the NSW TSC Act and approximately 47 migratory species listed under theCommonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999.
Sandpiper Environmental
15 April 2005/Final Report/A030407 6
Threatened species recorded on-site include, blue-billed duck, black-tailed godwit, black-necked stork, osprey, square-tailed kite and brolga.
A number of regionally significant species have also been recorded on-site, including many
inland species that use coastal wetlands as drought refuges. The high diversity of birdsrecorded at the Boyters Lane wetland indicates that the wetland represents one of a mosaicof wetland habitats on the Macleay floodplain.
2.4 SUMMARY
Information on the importance of the subject wetland for fauna varies between groups. Thereis a good body of information on birds, but limited information on other terrestrial vertebrategroups (mammals, reptiles & frogs), fish and invertebrates. Further information on thesegroups would assist in ensuring that appropriate management strategies are developed andimportantly ensuring that management does not have a detrimental impact on biodiversity.Research on fish and invertebrates is regarded as essential to obtain a better understandingof the importance of the wetland for these groups. In the absence of detailed ecological
research it is essential to ensure that an adaptive management approach is adopted. Such anapproach is considered appropriate whilst additional information is being collected.
3 FIELD ASSESSMENT
3.1 METHODS
3.1.1 Fauna Habitat Assessment
A qualitative assessment of fauna habitat was undertaken. This assessment included ameandering traverse of all fauna habitats present on the subject site. An initial indication of
the distribution of fauna habitats was obtained from a site meeting and review of aerialphotographs. The habitat assessment focussed on gathering information on the distributionand extent of important fauna habitat features, such as: dominant floristics in each strata,height of strata, vegetation cover, area of open water, extent of tidal influence, tree hollows,fallen logs, nest or roost trees, water depth, intertidal habitat, tidal exchange, fauna features(scats, tracks, runways, feeding sites etc) and weed species.
3.1.2 Baseline Field Survey
To obtain a better understanding of the value and use of the subject site by fauna a baselinefield survey was conducted between the 8th and 10th of July and 30 and 31 August 2004. Thissurvey included a meandering traverse of all fauna habitats, targeted searches for grass owland Australasian bittern and dusk and dawn bird surveys. The survey was not designed to
Sandpiper Environmental
15 April 2005/Final Report/A030407 7
provide a comprehensive assessment of fauna on the site and such a survey was beyond thescope of this assessment.
3.1.3 Aerial Photograph Interpretation (API)
Aerial photography of the study area was examined to assess the broad extent of vegetation
communities on site, and to generate a series of vegetation polygons to be identified throughground-truthing.
3.2 RESULTS
3.2.1 Fauna Habitat Assessment
Grassland
Grassland habitat is restricted to those (elevated) areas above the highest astronomical tide
(Figure 1.1), including all of the southwestern and southeastern corners. Grassland habitat onthe southern boundary is separated by about 150m of the brackish lagoon habitat. Grasslandis dominated by exotic grasses, with two isolated stands of exotic trees (dominated by Pinusspp) within the southwestern (sports fields) section and several small stands of matureswamp oak (Casuarina glauca). Ground cover is dense ranging between 90 and 100% andgrass height ranges from about 25cm to 60cm.
Habitat in the southwest of the site slopes gently towards the brackish and estuarine habitats
to the northeast. There is a distinct change in vegetation near the spring high tide level, wheregrasses are replaced by more salt tolerant species (refer to descriptions below). Thedemarcation between grassland and other habitats in the southeast is more abrupt, with smallbut steep inclines (0.5 to 1m high) separating habitats. Some regrowth swamp oaks, to aheight of 2m, were recorded within the Grassland habitat.
Grassland habitat has some value for fauna, as it provides foraging habitat for grass owls,small mammals, common birds, reptiles and amphibians. Some common waterbirds are also
likely to forage over grassland habitat during or after periods of prolonged rainfall, when thesoil may be waterlogged. Both the brolga and black-necked stork have been recordedroosting on grassland habitat (K. Shingleton pers comm.).
Small islands of grassland habitat dominated by stands of swamp oak and/or introducedgrasses are distributed throughout the saltmarsh habitat. Overstorey cover within theseislands is <5% and swamp oaks attain a maximum height of approximately 12m.
Several species of weed were recorded within or around the periphery of the Grasslandhabitat, including fireweed (Senecio sp), fleabane (Conyza sp), pink lantana (Lantana
camara), blackberry (Rubus ulmifolius), Morning Glory (Ipomea indica), camphour laurel(Cinnamomum camphora), groundsel (Baccharis halimifolia) and purple top (Verbanea sp).
Sandpiper Environmental
15 April 2005/Final Report/A030407 8
Brackish Lagoon – Teal Lagoon
The construction of a bund wall across the tidal channel that once extended through the
middle of the subject site has created a brackish lagoon (Figure 1.1). Habitat within thelagoon and on the upstream side of the bund is substantially different to (estuarine) habitat onthe downstream side of the bund. Salt water enters the lagoon via two 15cm diameter PVCpipes that are situated above the mean low water height, and during spring high tides, frominflows directly through the wall. The pipes restrict tidal exchange and ensure that the lagoondoes not drain fully at low tide. Freshwater inflows mix with tidal inflows creating a brackishwater habitat. The presence of mature mangrove trees and several dead stumps, presumedto be mangroves, provides evidence that the lagoon was historically part of an estuarine
system.
The lagoon has a surface area of approximately 2.24ha. The exact water depth is unknownalthough it may range from about 0.1m to 0.75m. The majority of the lagoon is open waterwith a narrow strip of littoral habitat. The extant of littoral habitat expands at low tide whensmall areas of mudflat are exposed. The littoral zone is dominated by Juncus spp. to a heightof 1m and salt couch (Sporobolus spp). Mangrove cover is sparse (<10%), with the highestcover and density of mangroves at the southern end. The sparsity of the mangrove cover is
attributed to historical water management and grazing. Mangroves within the lagoon aredominated by grey mangrove (Avicennia marina).
Mangrove seedlings, to 1m, occur around the periphery of the lagoon, with the highestdensities occurring on mudflats at the southern end. The recent exclusion of cattle hasenabled an increased number of mangrove seedlings to grow and mature mangroves alongthe southern edge of the lagoon provide a perpetual source of seed. Mangroves reach amaximum height of 4.5m. No branch or trunk hollows were recorded in the lagoon habitat.
The lagoon contains a variety of different habitats for waterbirds, including permanentbrackish water habitat for waterfowl, shallow water used for foraging by stilts, spoonbills andegrets, intertidal mudflats used by sandpipers and plovers. Dead trees provide roostinghabitat for a variety of species.
Brackish Inlet – Dotteral Inlet
The eastern inlet (Dotteral Inlet; Figure 1.1) is characterised by a variable pattern ofinundation. The inlet becomes inundated during spring high tides, and only partially drainsduring the subsequent low tide. This pattern of inundation would suggest a saltwater
dominated system, however, vegetation within the inlet is characterised by a mix of estuarineand freshwater species. According to local sources Dotterel Inlet was managed as afreshwater environment for several decades (B. Ford pers comm.), which explains theoccurrence of freshwater vegetation.
A 3-5m wide band of Juncus occurs along much of the periphery, with salt couch andfreshwater species, including Schoenoplectus sp, Maundia triglochinoides, Cotulacoronopifolia and Triglochin striatum occurring below the Juncus. Water depth varies
depending on tide height and freshwater inflows. The inlet is feed by a 15cm diameter PVCpipe situated within the bund wall. Water entering the inlet initially travels through dense salt
Sandpiper Environmental
15 April 2005/Final Report/A030407 9
couch and sedges before broadening into a 10-20m wide by 80m long basin that was largelydevoid of vegetation.
A variety of fauna habitats are represented in the inlet, including dense sedges and grassessuitable for small mammals and birds, open water suitable for large wading birds and shallow
tidal flats suitable for shorebirds. Frog habitat would be present during periods of high rainfall.
Mangroves and mudflat
Mangrove habitat is restricted to a small tidal channel linked to Spencers Creek, the southernedge of Spencers Creek that adjoins the subject site and tidal channels that feed thesaltmarsh habitat (Figure 1.1). Mangroves and mudflat cover almost 4ha of the subject site.The upstream extent of mangrove habitat within the tidal channel is restricted by the bundwalls, which separates mangrove and mudflat habitat from brackish habitats. Grey and rivermangrove (Aegiceras corniculatum) are the dominant species within the Mangrove habitat.
There is direct evidence of a recent expansion in the area covered by mangroves, with dense
areas of mangrove seedlings, to a height of 1m, recorded between saltmarsh and maturemangroves that line the tidal creek and in several tidal channels that occur within thesaltmarsh habitat. The recent proliferation in mangroves is most likely due to the removal ofgrazing pressure. At low tide much of the upstream extent of the tidal creek is exposedleaving a small area of intertidal mudflat with a sparse cover of seedling mangroves.
Mature mangroves adjoining the tidal creek reach a maximum height of approximately 7.5mand have an overstorey cover of approximately 60%. A small number of old growth
mangroves occur adjacent to Spencers Creek along the northern edge of the site. Thesemangroves provide potential roosting habitat for insectivorous bats with several small branchand trunk hollows recorded. Mangrove habitat is also used by several species of common birdfor foraging and roosting. Intertidal mudflats provide foraging habitat for waterbirds, includingibis, spoonbills, egrets, sandpipers, stilts and herons.
Saltmarsh & sedgeland
Saltmarsh habitat covers about 6.14ha in the northern third of the subject site and the inletsthat are separated by grassland habitat (Figure 1.1). Dense beds of Juncus sp. dominate theupper tidal areas of the saltmarsh habitat, with sparse juncus and salt couch dominating the
lower areas. The dense beds of juncus attain a maximum height of about 1m and have acover of between 90 and 100%. Ground cover in the lower areas ranges from 50 to 90%, withthe height of the ground stratum ranging from 10 to 50cm. The patchiness of the saltmarshcommunity may be due to previous grazing by cattle. A noticeable feature of the community isan undulating topography and there are a small number of shallow pools distributedthroughout the juncus and salt couch community. Emergent swamp oaks were evident on theupstream side of the bund wall in Juncus Inlet suggesting that this area may not be receivingsufficient salt water to maintain saltmarsh habitat.
The dense cover and occurrence of tidal channels provide potential habitat for Australasianbittern. The dense vegetation is also used by a variety of small passerines, whilst waterbirdsforage along the edge of tidal channels or throughout the salt couch community. Small
Sandpiper Environmental
15 April 2005/Final Report/A030407 10
mammals occur within the saltmarsh and sedgeland and this habitat is known to be used forforaging by grass owl.
Mangrove seedlings to 1m tall occur along tidal channels that feed the saltmarsh habitat,particularly the eastern channel. The spread of mangroves into saltmarsh may be limited by
competition, with dense saltmarsh vegetation, elevation and restricted tidal flow. However, iflong-term sea-level predictions are correct it is likely that mangroves will expand at theexpense of saltmarsh.
3.2.2 Baseline Field Survey
Birds were the most abundant fauna group recorded during the targeted field survey, with 50
species recorded (Appendix 2). Three species of threatened bird were recorded during thesurvey, grass owl, osprey and square-tailed kite. No Australasian bittern were recorded,although equipment failure meant that playback for this species was effective on one nightonly. Insectivorous bats were recorded foraging over the subject site and grey-headed flyingfoxes (Pteropus poliocephalus) were recorded traversing the site after dusk. Small groundmammals were also recorded in the saltmarsh and grassland habitats.
3.3 DISCUSSION
3.3.1 Summary of Fauna Values
The subject site, and specifically the wetlands provide a variety of habitats for fauna and inparticular birds. The site includes known habitat for several birds listed as threatened underthe NSW Threatened Species Conservation (TSC) Act 1995 and several migratory specieslisted under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
(EPBC) Act 1999. The subject site represents a small area of modified wetland in a state andnational context and despite the occurrence of migratory species it is unlikely that the subjectwetland would be considered as a significant area of habitat under the EPBC Act. The knownoccurrence of eight species listed under the TSC Act increases the state importance of thesite, although further surveys would be required to adequately assess the extent to whichthese species rely upon the subject wetland.
The wetland is important in the context of the Macleay Floodplain and particularly the SouthWest Rocks area as it most likely represents one of a matrix of wetlands used by waterbirds.Given the widespread removal and degradation of floodplain wetlands previously used bywaterbirds (Pressey & Harris 1988) it is essential that sites such as Boyters Lane areprotected and if possible enhanced. Conservation of waterbirds relies upon maintaining anumber of wetland habitats with different wetting and drying regimes (Kingsford & Norman2000). Waterbirds that use the Boyters Lane wetland are likely to move between the estuary
and other floodplain wetlands on a daily basis. The occurrence of numerous species typical ofinland wetlands provides further evidence of the importance of the Boyters Lane Wetland,which may be used as a drought refuge (Kingsford & Norman 2000).
Sandpiper Environmental
15 April 2005/Final Report/A030407 11
All habitats on the site have been modified by previous land management practices. Part ofthe value of the wetlands for waterbirds has occurred due to habitat modification resultingfrom the construction of bund walls and restrictions to tidal flow. Teal Lagoon provides anarea of permanent habitat for waterfowl and favourable foraging habitat for a variety ofwaterbirds that would not have been present without the construction of the bund wall. The
slow movement and warm temperatures of water in the lagoon most likely provide goodbreeding conditions for some invertebrates, which represent a food resource for waterbirds.Prior to the construction of the bund wall it is expected that the Teal Lagoon would have beendominated by mangroves, with only a small area of waterbird foraging habitat. Despite thefavourable conditions created by the wall, increased tidal flushing would improve invertebrateproductivity and reduce nutrient accumulation.
The dense grass and sedge habitat is suitable for a variety of common small mammals, which
provide a food resource for grass owls and diurnal birds of prey. Grassland and sedgelandhabitats would be used by a variety of common reptiles, frogs and birds. Insectivorous batsare also expected to roost within mature mangroves and forage over all habitats.Insectivorous bats may also roost in the old cow bales present on the subject site. Thebiodiversity values of areas currently covered by grassland habitat could be substantiallyimproved through active management, although this habitat is currently used for foraging byat least one grass owl. The extent to which grass owls rely on the grassland habitat within thesubject site is unknown, although it may form part of an individuals foraging range. It seems
unlikely that grass owls roost on-site as no individuals have been flushed during 12 years ofbird surveys, which have involved regular traverses of the site (K. Shingleton pers comm.).
The saltmarsh and mangrove habitats provide important roost and foraging habitat for avariety of fauna and represent an integral component of what is a modified estuarine wetland.Saltmarsh represents potential habitat for Australasian bittern and black-necked storks mayoccasionally forage and roost in the estuarine habitat. The recent listing of Saltmarsh as anendangered ecological community under the NSW TSC Act is further recognition of the high
conservation value of this habitat type. Furthermore, saltmarsh communities are protectedunder the Fisheries Management Act 1994.
3.3.2 Long-term Viability of Extant Habitats
Sheltered estuarine wetlands tend to change slowly, a fact attributed to the protected natureof these systems. Modification of estuarine wetlands and in particular the alteration of tidalflows, such as has occurred on the subject site, can result in obvious changes in habitat
structure and function. Changes in the type and distribution of habitats within the BoytersLane Wetland complex have occurred since the creation of bund walls and in response to sitemanagement, which included grazing by cattle. The recent removal of cattle has resulted infurther changes in habitat structure. The most obvious being the increased growth ofmangroves and swamp oaks, which would have previously been browsed by cattle. Inaddition to the expansion of mangrove seedlings in the Mangrove habitat, seedlings are alsonoticeable within Teal Lagoon and Saltmarsh habitat.
The limited tidal exchange into Teal Lagoon may reduce the growth of mangroves however,given the current level of seedling development and the occurrence of mature mangrove treeswithin the lagoon it is anticipated that mangrove cover will increase over time. Likewise, theoccurrence of seedling mangroves in the saltmarsh habitat may provide an insight into future
Sandpiper Environmental
15 April 2005/Final Report/A030407 12
mangrove expansion as has occurred in other estuaries in NSW (Saintilan and Williams 1998;Saintilan 2003).
Although mangroves provide habitat for a variety of fauna, their expansion into waterbirdhabitat would reduce visibility, which is considered important for many species (Lawler 1996).
Whilst it is too early to conclude that mangroves would dominate Teal Lagoon there isevidence to suggest that further growth and expansion is likely. The % cover of mangrovesalready present in the lagoon may be at a level that is unsuitable for some shorebirds (Lawler1996).
Quantitative studies on the visual distances required by waterbirds are limited, althoughLawler (1996) provides some information for shorebirds. For roosting shorebirds Lawler(1996) recommends a minimum buffer of 30m and preferably 50m to vegetation over 2m high,
with a distance of 75m required for vegetation over 5m tall. Although this information is ofvalue in must be recognised that much of Lawler’s data were gathered in more open habitatsand on species that demand good visibility. It is possible that shorebirds using brackish waterhabitats, such as sharp-tailed sandpiper, black-fronted and red-kneed dotterels, marshsandpipers and greenshank may tolerate sites with greater vegetation cover. In consideringvisibility distances it is essential to recognise the limited number of studies and the fact thatonce vegetation is present the impacts may be irreversible. Any revegetation plans mustconsider the sight distances required by waterbirds using Teal Lagoon.
The presence of established mangrove seedlings in shallow depressions in the SaltmarshHabitat could be indicative of further expansion. At present the dense saltmarsh vegetationappears to be restricting the movement of seedlings, however this could change if tidalexchange is increased or due to sea-level rise. One point obvious from the inspection of thesubject site is that action is required to manage the current deterioration of bund walls. Theexpansion of mangroves at the expense of saltmarsh is not considered desirable.
Limiting tidal exchange, particularly into Teal Lagoon has implications for long-term water
quality and ultimately the health of the brackish water habitat. Low levels of tidal inflows mayresult in a steady increase in nutrients, possibly to the detriment of the lagoon ecosystem.Increased tidal exchange may reduce nutrient build up and increase invertebrate productivity.The construction of an appropriately designed structure may also improve fish passage intoTeal Lagoon.
4 REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF ISSUES
4.1 REVIEW
The Boyters Lane Wetland Working Group and Coastal and Estuary Committee identified 18
issues associated with the management of the subject land. Ten of these issues are of directrelevance to fauna, including:
1. Council wishes to construct a pedestrian and educational walkway with observationstations within the eastern sector of the site.
Sandpiper Environmental
15 April 2005/Final Report/A030407 13
2. Council has a long-term plan to link the Boyters Lane playing fields to the CBD andsections of the residential area with a pedestrian/cycleway.
3. The Bird Observers Club of Australia (BOCA) has identified an exceptional range ofbird species on the site, including a number of species listed as threatened under theNSW TSC Act.
4. The Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) has raised concerns thatCouncils proposal to develop sections of the site may have potential impacts onwetland values.
5. Feral and domestic animal management.
6. Sport field lighting and night activities.
7. The impact on established biodiversity as a result of any pending managementchanges (i.e. from grazing to non-grazing).
8. Council wishes to re-establish native riparian vegetation to supplement theeducational walkway in areas determined via the Management Plan.
9. Access to playing fields.
10. Short-term fire management.
All of the above issues have direct implications for fauna and the management of fauna
habitat on the subject site. The above issues can be summarised into four interrelated topics:
Access through the wetland and to the sports field (Issues 1, 2 & 9).
Potential habitat modification that will affect biodiversity (Issues 4, 6, 7 & 8).
Site management (Issues 5 & 10).
Recognition of the biodiversity values of the wetland (Issue 3).
Issues covered by the first three dot points could have positive and/or negative impacts on thebiodiversity of the subject site. Dot point four differs, in that it relates to the recognition of thebiodiversity values of the wetland, specifically from the perspective of birds. Recognition ofthe biodiversity values of the subject wetland is essential to ensure that appropriate
management strategies are developed. The value of the subject wetland for vertebratebiodiversity has been addressed in Sections 2 and 3 and will not be specifically discussed inthis section.
4.2 ANALYSIS
4.2.1 Access
The proposal to construct a pedestrian walkway through the centre of the wetland to linkurban areas to the sports fields could have both positive and negative impacts. Use of thewalkway for environmental education and the inclusion of interpretive signage andobservation platforms could have a broad positive benefit for wetland conservation by
Sandpiper Environmental
15 April 2005/Final Report/A030407 14
increasing public awareness of wetland values. Three major user groups are likely to utilisethe walkway:
1. Groups visiting for educational purposes.
2. Local residents using the walkway for recreation and education.
3. Through traffic that use the walkway to access the sports fields.
In the absence of survey data it is impossible to conclude which user group would dominateuse of the walkway. The intensity of use is likely to vary between groups and between andwithin days. Through traffic is likely to peak during the weekend, although intense use couldbe expected during school sports days. Use by local residents may be highest in the morningand afternoon and on weekends and use by educational groups is expected to be irregularoccurring mainly during daylight hours on weekdays.
Although speculative, it is likely that people requiring through access and recreation woulddominate use of the walkway. Although some members of this group may benefit it is likelythat persons interested solely in access to the sports fields would gain minimal benefit fromtraversing the wetland.
Frequent visitation from persons with a low level of interest is likely to result in detrimentalimpacts on biodiversity and other wetland values. The main impact of site access would be
disturbance, pollution (refuse) and pest species. Use of the site by education groups andinterested residents would also cause disturbance, however, this disturbance would beirregular and have long-term positive benefits for wetland conservation. Active managementof access by these groups would reduce impacts.
Waterbirds, which comprise a highly visible portion of the sites biodiversity, are readilydisturbed by human activities (Lawler 1996; Melville 1997; Priest et al. 2002). Waterbirdsreact to irregular or short-term human disturbance in a similar manner to ‘natural’ forms ofdisturbance, such as traverses by birds of prey, with the resulting effect being initial flocking,followed by flight. The response of waterbirds will differ between species, although regulardisturbance interspersed with intense bursts of activity is likely to create unfavourableconditions for many species. Some waterbirds will habituate to human activity, however, themajority of species prefer less disturbed environments and will take flight if disturbed, whilstothers will concentrate activities in areas furthest from the disturbance source, or seek refugein dense thickets of vegetation. The major impact on waterbirds would occur near TealLagoon.
Research on the appropriate buffer distances between waterbirds and sources of disturbanceis limited, although Lawler (1996) recommends a minimum buffer of 100m to areas of intenseactivity (i.e. high speed boats, active people, helicopters, jet skis etc) and a minimum of 50mto more sedate forms of disturbance. Pedestrian access is likely to fall within the activepeople category and based on Lawler (1996) would require a minimum buffer of 100mbetween the waterbird habitat and the disturbance source.
Nelson (1994) provides some baseline information on types of disturbance and distances atwhich shorebirds were disturbed by various human activities in the Richmond River Estuary.
Sandpiper Environmental
15 April 2005/Final Report/A030407 15
That study identified an obvious difference in disturbance distances between large and smallshorebirds.
The draft concept plan proposed by Council included the construction of a walkway thatvirtually crosses the centre of the wetland (Appendix 1). From the perspective of fauna
conservation and particularly minimising adverse impacts the merits of such a proposal arequestionable. A central walkway would divide the subject site, separating fauna habitats andpushing fauna towards the periphery of the wetland. This is an unfavourable outcome forminimising impacts on existing wetland values. Such a walkway would also provide a sourceof rubbish and improve access for pest species, which includes domestic dogs and cats.
4.2.2 Habitat Modification
The proposal poses a definite risk of habitat modification, which could lead to detrimentalimpacts on biodiversity. Any discussion of habitat modification must consider the alreadymodified state of wetlands on the subject site. There is a strong argument to return modified
wetlands to their ‘natural’ state however, this often has implications for species that utilise themodified system. It should be noted that all types of floodplain wetlands have been modifiedand the focus on one specific type of wetland causes an imbalance. Until floodplainrestoration projects address all aspects of the floodplain ecosystem some groups of wetlandfauna will continue to be disadvantaged as displaced habitats are not recreated elsewhere.
The long-term impact of removing cattle on wetlands has already been discussed (refer toSection 3.2.2). Other impacts could stem from lights used at the sports fields, nutrient runoff
from sports fields into wetlands, reforestation of grassland habitat adjoining wetlands andrestoration of tidal exchange.
Lights used for night-time sports events would illuminate a substantial area of wetland unlessdesign constraints are imposed. Increased illumination could affect fauna in two ways. Somespecies may be disturbed and subsequently leave the wetland, whilst others could benefit byhaving the foraging substrate illuminated. Many species of waterfowl and shorebird forageirrespective of day or night (McNeil et al. 1992), whilst most wading birds (i.e. egrets, herons,
ibis, spoonbills) forage mainly during the day and occasionally on moonlit nights (Marchant &Higgins 1990; 1993; Higgins & Davies 1996: pers obs).
Permanent artificial lighting may be beneficial to some species of shorebird by providingfavourable feeding conditions, although changes in habitat use and species composition arelikely (Rohweder 2000; Rohweder & Baverstock 1996; Rohweder & Lewis 2001). In this caselighting would not be permanent and would occur irregularly and for varying periods of time.Birds and other fauna are less likely to habituate to infrequent or irregular lighting events and
are therefore more likely to be disturbed. Waterbirds using Teal Lagoon may be most affectedas this site is closest to the light source. Specific measures will be required to reduce theincidence of light within the lagoon. The use of directional lighting and screen plantings mayreduce impacts. Even with these measures some illumination of Teal Lagoon is expected,and the end result may be the creation of a full moon affect. Lighting may also affect otherspecies. For example, insectivorous bats may forage around lights (pers obs), whilstillumination may alter the behaviour patterns of small ground mammals and grass owl.
Sandpiper Environmental
15 April 2005/Final Report/A030407 16
Nutrient runoff from the sports fields into mangrove, saltmarsh and lagoon habitats is likely.Regular tidal flushing of the mangrove and saltmarsh habitats would reduce the risk ofnutrient enrichment in these habitats. However, the low level of tidal flushing in Teal Lagooncould result in nutrient enrichment, which could alter the bird community, favouring thosespecies that are tolerant of nutrient rich waters. Eutrophication of Teal Lagoon could have a
detrimental impact on estuarine habitat following intense rainfall events when nutrient richwaters are flushed into the estuary.
Reforestation of grassland habitat would have both positive and negative impacts.Reforestation would substantially increase the conservation value of grassland habitat byproviding additional habitat for a range of fauna. Conversely trees would reduce the sightdistances required by waterbirds to detect predators. This impact would be particularlyevident where trees adjoin waterbird habitat.
Patterns of tidal movement across the subject site have been highly modified for severaldecades and the system is currently in a slow state of modification as tidal waters erodeberms. Changes to tidal inflows could have substantial impacts on vegetation communitiesand fauna habitat. For example, the removal of all berms would result in increased fishpassage and the expansion of mangrove habitat at the expense of waterbird habitat andsaltmarsh. Although small areas of grassland habitat may be colonised by saltmarsh theopportunity for saltmarsh transgression is limited by topography. Increasing tidal exchange
would have both positive and negative benefits. Positive benefits include increased fishpassage, expansion of mangroves and improved water quality and increased wetlandproductivity, whilst negative impacts include the loss of waterbird habitat, loss of saltmarshand impacts on threatened species. There is a clear need to balance the positive benefits ofincreased tidal exchange with maintaining some of the existing wetland values.
4.2.3 Site Management
Issues of relevance to site management include fire, feral and domestic dogs and cats, pest
species and weeds. Management of fire risk has obvious benefits for vertebrate biodiversity.The most fire prone fauna habitats on the subject site are the Grassland and Saltmarshhabitats. Although saltmarsh would normally have a low fire risk the high density of Juncussp. and limited inundation within this habitat coupled with its close proximity to the grasslandincreases the level of fire risk. Under severe fire conditions i.e. low humidity, strong winds andhigh fuel loads in the grassland habitat it is likely that some saltmarsh habitat would be burnt.This could have a deleterious impact by displacing fauna and providing an opportunity for
weed species to colonise saltmarsh habitat. A fire in the grassland habitat would temporarilydisplace a range of common vertebrate species. Fire risk on the subject site could beminimised by replacing grassland with a less fire prone vegetation community.
Management of feral and domestic animals would have definite benefits for vertebrate
biodiversity. However, conflicts are anticipated between easy site access and feral anddomestic animal management. The site access proposed by Kempsey Shire Council (2004)would provide direct access for domestic animals into the wetland resulting in additionaldisturbance to waterbirds and other fauna. Managing disturbance by domestic animals islikely to be very difficult when the access path bisects the subject site.
A range of introduced species are likely to utilise the subject site, however, foxes pose thegreatest risk of direct impact on fauna. Fox numbers on the site could be managed via a
Sandpiper Environmental
15 April 2005/Final Report/A030407 17
baiting program, although such a program would have implications for domestic dogsaccessing the site from the walkway. In addition, for such a baiting program to be effective itwould need to cover a broader area than just the subject site.
Weed management is also an important issue, with several weed species occurring on-site.The dense grass cover probably restricts weed growth, however, removal of this grass coverand disturbance of the soil could provide ideal conditions for weeds and weed control wouldneed to form part of site maintenance.
4.3 ISSUE PRIORITISATION
Issues have been prioritised according to their potential risk of impact on fauna (Table 4.1).All of the issues pose either a moderate or high risk to the management of vertebrate faunaand maintenance of biodiversity values. High risks include the impact of managementchanges (i.e. removal of grazing, altered tidal exchange), the re-establishment of riparianvegetation over grassland habitat, and linking the sports fields to the CBD. All of these issues
could potentially modify extant fauna habitat values unless specific amelioration measures areadopted. Careful planning is also required as some actions may not be reversible withoutadditional expenditure. For example, the colonisation of saltmarsh by mangrove due to theremoval of berms would be difficult to rectify without additional earthworks and assessment.Increased tidal exchange would have other benefits though asa it could increase fish passageand wetland productivity.
Playing field use, access by humans, fire and domestic animal management all pose a risk of
impact on fauna. This risk is considered to be moderate as there is a high likelihood thatimpacts can be reduced through appropriate planning and by adopting an adaptive approachto management. Concerns by the DEC regarding impacts on threatened fauna are alsowarranted, however, there is a strong likelihood that impacts can be ameliorated withoutimpacts on threatened species.
Sandpiper Environmental
15 April 2005/Final Report/A030407 18
Table 4.1: Prioritisation of the risk posed to fauna from the issues identified by the BoytersLane Wetland Working Group and Coastal and Estuary Committee.
Issue GroupingTopic
Risk posed tomanagement ofvertebrate fauna& maintenance of
biodiversityvalues
Construction of pedestrian andeducational walkway.
Access Moderate
Link playing fields to CBD andresidential areas withwalkway/cycleway.
Access High
Access to playing f ields. Access Moderate
DEC concerns regardingdevelopment impacts.
Modif ication Moderate
Sport field lighting and nightactivities.
Modif ication Moderate
Impact of managementchanges (tidal exchange etc).
Modif ication High
Re-establish native riparianvegetation to supplementeducational walkway.
Modif ication High
Short-term fire management. Management Moderate
Feral and domestic animalmanagement.
Management Moderate
Recognition of the importanceof the wetland for birds.
BiodiversityValues
Nil
Sandpiper Environmental
15 April 2005/Final Report/A030407 19
5 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS AND OBJECTIVES
5.1 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
5.1.1 Wetlands and Elevated Land
To facilitate a strategic approach to wetland management the subject site has been dividedinto 10 management units and management options have been developed for each unit(Table 5.1; Figure 1.1). Separate options have been developed for infrastructure (facilities)that is required to support the proposed use of the subject site (Table 5.2).
Between three and four options are proposed for each management unit, including the Do-nothing option. The positives and negatives of each option are also detailed. The optionsanalysis (Table 5.1 & 5.2) has identified several re-occurring issues, establishment andmaintenance costs, potential failure of existing structures (pipes and berm), alteredbiodiversity, fish passage and impacts on threatened species.
The do-nothing option has minimal establishment costs, although this option would createongoing management costs associated with vegetation control (i.e. controlling fire hazard and
weeds on elevated land) and is likely to cause a change in biodiversity values over time aspipes deteriorate and berms erode. Field inspections have shown that the berm is eitherhighly permeable or broken in several key areas. No action in the wetland areas would resultin a long-term change in the extent and type of wetlands present. This would reduce the valueof the site for waterbirds and possibly the educational value of having a variety of wetlandtypes. One positive benefit of berm failure would be increased fish passage, and possibly theexpansion of mangroves, although mangrove expansion may occur at the expense ofsaltmarsh.
Alternative management options for the elevated (terrestrial) areas vary between locations.The central premise of management options for elevated land has been to minimise impactson extant wetland values, whilst increasing the biodiversity value of the management unit (i.e.elevated land). Options for land either side of Teal Lagoon vary substantially, fromreforestation to wetland construction. Both these options would increase the biodiversity valueof the subject land, however, reforestation with trees and shrubs would most likely reduce thevalue of Teal Lagoon for waterbirds by reducing visibility. Conversely, there is concern over
the feasibility of proposing several constructed wetlands. A suitable compromise may be toplant grasses and sedges that will provide foraging habitat for grass owls and maintainwaterbird sight distances.
All of the wetlands present on the subject site have been affected by previous changes tohydrology. Apart from the Do-nothing option there are three alternatives for managing theseareas, removal of berms and pipes, maintenance of controlled inflows or full closure. Theremoval of berms and pipes would cause a substantial change in wetland type and function.
This has obvious benefits for fish passage and mangroves, although it could have negativeimpacts on waterbirds and saltmarsh. Ongoing control of inflows would retain the status quoand aim to manage the wetland in its current modified state, however, this option wouldrequire ongoing maintenance costs and could lead to long-term problems with water quality. It
Sandpiper Environmental
15 April 2005/Final Report/A030407 20
may be that different management options are selected for each of the inlets currentlyaffected by reduced tidal exchange.
Active management of wetlands would increase costs and the complexity of management.There is a strong case for restoring full tidal exchange and allowing the wetlands to return to a
‘natural’ state. However, there are positive and negative aspects to this option. For example,opening Dotterel and Bittern Inlets to full tidal inflows could result in the expansion ofmangroves at the expense of saltmarsh. A better approach would be to open one inlet andmonitor changes in habitat, whilst in the meantime actively managing the other inlet.
Teal Lagoon represents a unique situation and developing a management framework thatcreates a low maintenance (& low cost) and healthy wetland is problematic. There is inherentdifficulty in managing the Lagoon for waterbirds, whilst at the same time satisfying demands
for fish passage and providing low maintenance and low cost recommendations. The Lagoonecosystem would benefit greatly from increased tidal exchange, however, mangroves must becontrolled if the Lagoon is to be managed for waterbirds. There are two facets to controllingmangroves in Teal Lagoon. Firstly, mangroves should be removed from within the lagoon,and secondly, mangrove seeds must be stopped from entering the Lagoon.
Increased tidal flushing can be achieved by replacing the existing pipes with either a largerpipe or drop board structure. A drop board may be preferred as it enables easy manipulationof flows. The drop boards would allow increased fish passage and the greater tidal exchange
would reduce nutrient accumulation and improve benthic productivity. If the site is to bemanaged for waterbirds then there is a definite need to control mangrove growth. The mosteffective way to achieve this would be remove mangroves from the system and limit thenumber of mangroves entering the system. A modified drop board structure may be the mostappropriate means of limiting mangroves.
5.1.2 Facilities
Various facilities will be required to provide access to the sports fields and educationalopportunities. The basic facilities proposed include, walking/bike track, lights for sports fields,bird hides, viewing platform, interpretive signage, bird crossing points and picnic areas.Options have been developed for each of these facilities and the positive and negativeaspects of each option considered (Table 5.2). In developing options for facilities the goal hasbeen to minimise impacts on biodiversity but provide an appropriate educational experienceand access to the sports fields.
The Do-nothing option has been considered for each type of facility. Whilst this option has lowcost, doing nothing is regarded as an inappropriate use of a valuable community asset. Threealternative options are proposed for pedestrian access. These range from a central path witha bridge over Spencers Creek (Option 2) to a path that follows South West Rocks Road, theexisting road bridge and Boyters Lane (Option 4). Option Two poses the highest risk ofimpacts on wetland values, whilst Option Four poses the lowest risk. Option three, whichinvolves the construction of a bridge over Spencers Creek and an eastern path that joinsBoyters Lane on the eastern side of Teal Lagoon, would have a medium to low level of
impact. The main feature of Option Four would be a loop track that allows interested personsto exit the main access path and walk through the wetlands.
Sandpiper Environmental
15 April 2005/Final Report/A030407 21
All of the access path options would require facilities for educational purposes. Bird hide/s,viewing platforms and interpretive signage are all proposed to increase the educationalexperience. These facilities are essential if the wetland is to be used for educational purposesand to minimise the impacts from recreational activities. The primary decision being howmany of each facility and where should they be located. Picnic facilities are proposed for the
southeast corner of the site.
Two options are proposed to minimise the risk of road strike on waterbirds crossing Boyterslane, traffic calming devices and signage. Ensuring that thick vegetation is retained adjacentto the road/walking path would also assist in providing cover for birds prior to crossing theroad.
5.1.3 Important Considerations
As noted previously the type and extent of wetlands on the subject site are indicative ofprevious management and the site is characteristic of a modified wetland system. Leavingextant management structures such as berms and pipes to deteriorate and ultimately fail withunknown consequences does not equate to good wetland management. Although there isvalue in removing all berms and pipes and restoring full tidal exchange the consequences ofthis are difficult predict, although impacts on extant wetland values are expected. Decisionson wetland management must consider broader processes such as climate change (sea-levelrise), which is likely to have a substantial influence on wetland habitats and the extent to
which different habitats are represented and protected on the Macleay floodplain.
Wetland rehabilitation projects are often undertaken on the premise that they will have apositive environmental benefit. Whilst this is generally the case it must be noted thatrehabilitation projects often fall within the definition of an activity under the EnvironmentalPlanning and Assessment Act 1974 and as such require approval. Most importantly thepotential environmental impact of these activities must be fully considered, including impactson threatened species, endangered populations and ecological communities listed under theThreatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and Fisheries Management Act 1994.
It must be recognised that wetlands identified for rehabilitation often occur within highlymodified landscapes and species that currently utilise the modified wetland do so becauseother ‘preferred’ habitats are unavailable. Modification to habitats on the subject site couldhave a detrimental impact on several threatened species, including, grass owl, black-neckedstork and brolga. The DEC will require that impacts on threatened fauna be assessed in anappropriate manner. A flexible management approach will be required to minimise impacts on
fauna whilst at the same time restoring wetland values.
San
dpi
pe
r E
nvir
onm
ent
al
15
Apr
il 2
005/
Fin
al R
epo
rt/A
030
407
22
Tab
le 5
.1: P
ropo
sed
man
agem
ent o
ptio
ns fo
r ea
ch m
anag
emen
t uni
ts w
ithin
the
Boy
ters
Lan
e W
etla
nd c
ompl
ex.
Op
tio
ns
Man
ag
em
ent
Un
it
On
eT
wo
Th
ree
Fo
ur
1. W
est
sid
e o
f Tea
l Lag
oon
Do
no
thin
g.
Cre
ate
fre
shw
ate
r w
etla
nd w
ith b
uffe
rp
lan
tings
Re
vege
tate
En
cour
age
saltm
ars
h e
xpan
sio
n
Iss
ue
: Q
ualit
y a
nd q
uan
tity
of r
unof
f fr
om
pla
ying
fiel
ds,
exi
stin
g ky
kuyu
gra
ss
Po
sit
ive
s: lo
w c
ost.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
ong
oin
g g
rass
ma
nag
emen
tp
rob
lem
s, n
utri
ents
an
d in
cre
ased
ru
noff
fro
m f
ield
s e
nte
r T
eal
La
goo
n.
Po
sit
ive
s: b
iod
ive
rsity
gai
n,
ma
nage
nut
rien
ts a
nd
pea
k flo
ws
from
fiel
ds,
mai
nta
in s
ight
dis
tan
ce fo
r w
ate
rbir
ds,
pro
vide
a b
uffe
r b
etw
een
wet
lan
ds a
nd
pla
ying
fie
lds.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
esta
blis
hmen
t an
dm
ain
ten
anc
e c
osts
, po
ten
tial A
SS
imp
acts
.
Po
sit
ive
s: s
ome
filte
ring
of
nutr
ien
ts,
red
uce
s on
goi
ng
man
age
me
nt c
ost
s,b
iod
ive
rsity
gai
n.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
redu
ces
sig
ht
dist
anc
e f
orw
ate
rbir
ds,
impa
cts
on th
rea
ten
ed s
peci
es.
Po
sit
ive
s: in
cre
ase
d e
xten
t of
en
dan
gere
de
colo
gic
al c
omm
uni
ty,
bio
div
ers
ity g
ain,
impr
ove
d fis
h h
ab
itat,
low
ma
nage
me
ntco
st.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
esta
blis
hmen
t an
d sh
ort
-ter
mm
ain
ten
anc
e c
ost,
po
ten
tial A
SS
imp
acts
,p
ossi
ble
loss
of
saltm
arsh
in
long
-te
rm if
Te
al L
ago
on b
erm
is r
emo
ved
or
ero
ded
, or
with
sea
leve
l ris
e.
2. N
orth
ed
ge
of p
layi
ng
field
sD
o n
oth
ing
En
cour
age
exp
ans
ion
of
saltm
ars
hC
rea
te f
resh
wat
er
we
tlan
dR
eve
get
ate
Iss
ue
: Q
ualit
y a
nd q
uan
tity
of r
unof
f fr
om
pla
ying
fiel
ds,
exi
stin
g ky
kuyu
gra
ss
Po
sit
ive
s: n
o e
sta
blis
hme
nt c
ost.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
ong
oin
g m
ana
gem
ent
co
st,
low
bio
div
ers
ity v
alu
e, n
o b
iod
ive
rsity
gai
n.
Po
sit
ive
s: in
cre
ase
d e
xten
t of
en
dan
gere
de
colo
gic
al c
omm
uni
ty,
bio
div
ers
ity g
ain,
impr
ove
d fis
h h
ab
itat,
low
ma
nage
me
ntco
st.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
esta
blis
hmen
t an
d sh
ort
-ter
mm
ain
ten
anc
e c
ost,
po
ten
tial A
SS
imp
acts
.
Po
sit
ive
s: b
iod
ive
rsity
gai
n,
redu
cen
utri
ents
en
teri
ng e
stu
ary,
mai
ntai
n si
gh
td
ista
nce
for
wa
terb
irds
.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
esta
blis
hmen
t co
sts,
po
ten
tial
AS
S im
pact
s.
Po
sit
ive
s: s
ome
filte
ring
of
nutr
ien
ts,
red
uce
s on
goi
ng
man
age
me
nt c
ost
s,b
iod
ive
rsity
gai
n.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
Imp
acts
on
line
-of-
sig
ht
3. T
ea
l La
goo
nD
o n
oth
ing
Rep
air
berm
rep
lace
pip
es w
ith d
rop
boa
rdst
ruct
ure
- m
an
age
as
brac
kish
lago
on
for
wa
terb
ird
s, c
ont
rol m
angr
ove
s, in
clud
esm
all
low
isla
nd o
f ap
prop
riat
e d
esi
gn.
Re
mo
ve b
erm
and
re
stor
e f
ully
est
uar
ine
hab
itat
Rep
air a
nd M
aint
ain
Ber
m –
sto
p tid
alin
flow
s to
cre
ate
fre
shw
ate
r ha
bita
t.
Iss
ue
: C
ons
truc
ted
ber
m is
bec
om
ing
de
grad
ed,
re
duce
dtid
al e
xch
ange
Po
sit
ive
s: lo
w c
ost,
exp
ansi
on
of
man
grov
es
(med
ium
ter
m),
imp
rove
d fis
hh
abita
t.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
loss
of
wat
erb
ird h
ab
itat
(me
diu
m t
erm
), a
ltere
d b
iod
ive
rsity
, be
rmfa
ilure
, lo
ss o
f b
rack
ish
wat
er
hab
itat
(lon
gte
rm),
red
uce
d e
duc
atio
na
l val
ues,
imp
acts
on
thre
ate
ne
d sp
ecie
s h
abita
t, u
nce
rtai
nty.
Po
sit
ive
s: im
prov
ed
wa
terb
ird
hab
itat,
impr
ove
d fis
h p
ass
age
, re
du
ced
nu
trie
nta
ccum
ulat
ion,
edu
cati
onal
va
lues
, n
oim
pact
on
thre
ate
ned
spe
cie
s.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
cost
of o
ngo
ing
ma
nag
emen
t,u
nce
rta
inty
reg
ardi
ng a
bili
ty t
o e
xclu
dem
angr
ove
see
dlin
gs,
cost
of m
aint
ena
nce
,ri
sk o
f fu
ture
ber
m a
nd p
ipe
or
we
ir fa
ilure
,lo
we
r fis
h p
ass
age
than
if b
erm
rem
ove
d.
Po
sit
ive
s: lo
w e
sta
blis
hme
nt c
ost,
min
imal
mai
nte
na
nce
cos
t, in
cre
ase
d fis
h p
ass
age
and
fis
h h
abita
t, e
duca
tion
al v
alu
es.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
alte
red
bio
dive
rsity
, red
uced
wa
terb
ird
valu
es,
red
uce
d w
etla
ndd
iver
sity
, im
pac
ts o
n th
reat
ene
d sp
ecie
sh
abita
t.
Po
sit
ive
s: P
ote
ntia
l in
cre
ase
in a
wid
era
nge
of
hab
itat
valu
es,
e.g
. we
tland
pla
nts
for
foo
d a
nd n
est
mat
eri
al
Ne
ga
tive
s:
Re
duce
d f
ish
pa
ssag
e, a
ltere
db
iod
ive
rsity
va
lues
, im
pact
s on
thre
ate
ned
spec
ies,
po
tent
ial w
eed
issu
es
(e.g
.h
yaci
nth
), p
oss
ible
nut
rien
t en
richm
ent
fro
m b
irds
San
dpi
pe
r E
nvir
onm
ent
al
15
Apr
il 2
005/
Fin
al R
epo
rt/A
030
407
23
Tab
le 5
.1 c
ont.
Man
ag
em
ent
Un
itO
pti
on
s
On
eT
wo
Th
ree
Fo
ur
4. W
este
rn e
leva
ted
lan
dD
o n
oth
ing
Re
vege
tati
on -
mix
of s
wam
p fo
rest
and
rain
fore
st d
ep
endi
ng o
n e
leva
tion
.C
ons
truc
t fr
esh
wat
er
we
tlan
dC
reat
e n
ativ
e g
rass
land
/sed
gel
an
d
Iss
ue
: K
ykuy
uP
os
itiv
es:
no
est
ab
lishm
ent
cos
t, m
ain
tain
thre
ate
ne
d sp
ecie
s h
abita
t (G
rass
Ow
lo
nly)
.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
ong
oin
g m
aint
ena
nce
cos
ts,
fire
ris
k, lo
w b
iod
ive
rsit
y, lo
w e
duca
tion
alva
lue
.
Po
sit
ive
s: r
edu
ced
fire
ris
k, lo
w o
ngoi
ngm
ain
ten
anc
e c
ost,
inc
rea
sed
edu
cati
onal
valu
e,
incr
eas
ed
bio
dive
rsity
, in
crea
sed
cons
erv
atio
n va
lue,
thr
eate
ned
spe
cie
sh
abita
t.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
esta
blis
hmen
t co
sts,
inte
nsi
vem
anag
eme
nt r
equ
ired
initi
ally
, los
s o
f gra
sso
wl h
ab
itat,
re
duce
d lin
e-o
f-si
ght
dis
tan
cefo
r w
ate
rbird
s, p
ote
ntia
l AS
S im
pac
ts.
Po
sit
ive
s: I
ncre
ase
d b
iod
ive
rsity
va
lue,
mai
nta
in li
ne
-of-
sig
ht d
ista
nce
fo
rw
ate
rbir
ds,
edu
catio
nal
va
lue
, cre
ate
sth
rea
ten
ed
spec
ies
hab
itat,
com
plem
ent
oth
er
we
tlan
d ty
pes
.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
esta
blis
hmen
t an
dm
ain
ten
anc
e c
ost,
po
ssib
le o
ngo
ing
we
edm
anag
eme
nt, r
emov
al o
f gra
ss o
wl h
abi
tat,
pot
ent
ial A
SS
impa
cts
.
Po
sit
ive
s: b
iod
ive
rsity
gai
ns,
ed
uca
tiona
lva
lue
, m
ain
tain
lin
e-of
-sig
ht
dist
anc
e f
orw
ate
rbir
ds,
mai
nta
ins
gra
ss o
wl h
abi
tat,
cre
ate
s th
rea
ten
ed
spec
ies
hab
itat.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
esta
blis
hmen
t an
dm
ain
ten
anc
e c
osts
, on
goin
g w
ee
dm
anag
eme
nt (
incl
ude
s C
asu
arin
aco
loni
sat
ion)
, pot
ent
ial A
SS
impa
cts.
5. E
stua
ryD
o n
oth
ing
Rem
ove
con
cre
te p
ipe
on
eas
tern
inl
et.
Iss
ue
: P
ipe
on
ed
ge
of s
iteto
Sp
ence
rs C
reek
Po
sit
ive
s: a
llow
est
uar
ine
sys
tem
,in
clu
ding
ma
ngro
ves
to r
e-es
tabl
ish
pos
tg
raz
ing
, no
est
abl
ishm
ent
an
dm
ain
ten
anc
e c
ost.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
No
ne
Po
sit
ive
s: r
est
orin
g na
tura
l pro
cess
es.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
sho
rt t
erm
low
leve
l ero
sio
n,sm
all c
ost
.
6. M
iddl
e In
let
Do
noth
ing
Rep
air b
erm
and
man
age
tidal
flow
sR
emov
e be
rm a
nd in
crea
se ti
dal f
low
sR
epai
r an
d M
aint
ain
Ber
m –
sto
p tid
alin
flow
s to
cre
ate
fre
shw
ate
r ha
bita
t.
Iss
ue
: M
ain
Be
rm is
ero
din
g,
ber
m r
est
ricts
na
tura
l tid
al
flow
s, J
unc
us
has
est
ablis
hed
ext
ens
ivel
yso
uth
-eas
t of
ber
m
Po
sit
ive
s: lo
w c
ost,
slo
w e
xpan
sio
n o
fm
angr
ove
s, in
crea
sed
fish
pa
ssag
e.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
eros
ion
of
berm
(lo
ng t
erm
),d
iffic
ult t
o p
red
ict
imp
acts
on
ext
an
tsa
ltma
rsh
Po
sit
ive
s: m
ain
tain
exi
stin
g h
ab
itat,
edu
cati
onal
be
nefit
s, m
aint
ena
nce
of
site
acc
ess.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
ma
inte
nan
ce c
ost
, red
uced
fis
hp
assa
ge,
on
goi
ng
ma
nage
me
nt,
poss
ible
chan
ge in
ha
bita
t up
stre
am o
f be
rm,
pot
ent
ial A
SS
dis
turb
anc
e.
Po
sit
ive
s: im
prov
ed
fish
pa
ssag
e, l
ow
cost
, exp
ans
ion
of
man
grov
es,
po
ssib
lee
xpa
nsio
n o
f sa
ltma
rsh
, ed
uca
tion
al v
alu
e.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
poss
ible
red
uct
ion
in J
unc
us,
unc
ert
ain
ty,
alte
red
bio
dive
rsity
, im
pac
ts o
ng
rass
ow
l.
Po
sit
ive
s: P
ote
ntia
l in
cre
ase
in a
wid
era
nge
of
hab
itat
valu
es,
e.g
. we
tland
pla
nts
for
foo
d a
nd n
est
mat
eri
al
Ne
ga
tive
s:
Re
duce
d f
ish
pa
ssag
e, a
ltere
db
iod
ive
rsity
va
lues
, im
pact
s on
thre
ate
ned
spec
ies,
loss
of
saltm
arsh
7. C
entr
al e
leva
ted
lan
dD
o n
oth
ing
Re
vege
tati
on -
mix
of s
wam
p fo
rest
,se
dges
an
d ra
info
rest
de
pen
ding
on
ele
vat
ion.
Iss
ue
: K
ykuy
u g
rass
, fir
e r
isk
Po
sit
ive
s: n
o e
sta
blis
hme
nt c
ost,
ma
inta
inG
rass
Ow
l ha
bita
t.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
ong
oin
g m
aint
ena
nce
cos
ts,
fire
ris
k, lo
w b
iod
ive
rsit
y, lo
w e
duca
tion
alva
lue
.
Po
sit
ive
s: s
olv
es is
sue
of
fire
an
d o
ngoi
ngm
ain
ten
anc
e, i
ncre
ase
d e
du
catio
nal v
alu
e,in
cre
ased
bio
div
ersi
ty,
incr
ease
dco
nse
rva
tion
valu
e.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
esta
blis
hmen
t co
sts,
inte
nsi
vem
anag
eme
nt r
equ
ired
initi
ally
, im
pact
s on
gra
ss o
wl h
abi
tat.
San
dpi
pe
r E
nvir
onm
ent
al
15
Apr
il 2
005/
Fin
al R
epo
rt/A
030
407
24
Tab
le 5
.1 c
ont.
Man
ag
em
ent
Un
itO
pti
on
s
On
eT
wo
Th
ree
Fo
ur
8. D
otte
rel I
nle
tD
o n
oth
ing
Rep
air
berm
an
d m
ain
tain
exi
stin
g tid
ale
xcha
nge
Rem
ove
berm
- in
crea
se ti
dal e
xcha
nge.
Rep
air b
erm
and
sto
p tid
al in
unda
tion
–cr
ea
te f
resh
wat
er
hab
itat
Iss
ue
: F
resh
wat
er
influ
ence
s, M
ain
Be
rmre
stric
ts s
altw
ate
r flo
ws,
on
ee
xist
ing
150
mm
PV
C p
ipe
inb
erm
Po
sit
ive
s: n
o e
sta
blis
hme
nt c
ost,
incr
eas
ed fi
sh p
assa
ge
shou
ld b
erm
fai
l(l
ong-
term
).
Ne
ga
tive
s:
poss
ible
be
rm/p
ipe
failu
re (
long
term
), r
educ
tion
of
wat
erb
ird h
ab
itat,
redu
ced
we
tland
div
ers
ity, u
ncer
tain
ty.
Po
sit
ive
s: e
nsu
res
that
exi
stin
gm
anag
eme
nt r
egi
me
is m
aint
ain
ed
,e
duca
tion
al v
alu
e o
f an
oth
er w
etla
nd t
ype
.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
rest
rictin
g e
xten
t of
saltm
arsh
and
ma
ngro
ves,
ong
oin
g m
ain
ten
ance
of
ber
m,
rest
rict
ed
fish
pas
sag
e, p
ote
ntia
lA
SS
impa
cts
from
be
rm d
istu
rba
nce
.
Po
sit
ive
s: lo
w e
sta
blis
hme
nt c
ost,
incr
eas
ed fi
sh p
assa
ge,
po
ssib
le e
xpa
nsi
on
of m
ang
rove
s, p
oss
ible
exp
ansi
on
of
saltm
ars
h.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
redu
ctio
n o
f wa
terb
ird
ha
bita
t,re
duce
d w
etla
nd d
iver
sity
, red
uced
edu
cati
onal
va
lue,
unc
ert
ain
ty,
pot
ent
ial
AS
S im
pact
s fr
om b
erm
so
il d
istu
rba
nce
,th
rea
ten
ed
spec
ies
impa
cts.
Po
sit
ive
s: in
cre
ase
d w
etla
nd d
iver
sity
,e
duca
tion
al v
alu
es,
retu
rns
to p
revi
ous
man
agem
ent
re
gim
e a
s fr
eshw
ate
r w
etla
nd(a
lthou
gh n
ot
the
na
tura
l co
nditi
on)
.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
esta
blis
hmen
t co
st,
alte
red
bio
div
ers
ity,
loss
of
fish
ha
bita
t, lo
ss o
fsa
ltma
rsh
, po
tent
ial A
SS
impa
cts
from
ber
m s
oil
dist
urb
anc
e.
9. E
ast
ele
vate
d la
ndD
o n
oth
ing
Re
vege
tati
on -
mix
of s
wam
p fo
rest
and
rain
fore
st d
ep
endi
ng o
n e
leva
tion
.
Iss
ue
: K
ykuy
u g
rass
, fir
eri
sk, r
emna
nt s
wa
mp
for
est
Po
sit
ive
s: n
o e
sta
blis
hme
nt c
ost,
ma
inta
inG
rass
Ow
l ha
bita
t.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
ong
oin
g m
aint
ena
nce
cos
ts,
fire
ris
k, lo
w b
iod
ive
rsit
y, lo
w e
duca
tion
alva
lue
.
Po
sit
ive
s: s
olv
es is
sue
of
fire
an
d o
ngoi
ngm
ain
ten
anc
e, i
ncre
ase
d e
du
catio
nal v
alu
e,in
cre
ased
bio
div
ersi
ty,
incr
ease
dco
nse
rva
tion
valu
e.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
high
er e
sta
blis
hmen
t cos
ts,
inte
nsi
ve m
ana
gem
en
t req
uire
d in
itia
lly,
impa
cts
on g
rass
ow
l ha
bita
t.
10. R
oads
ide
vege
tatio
nD
o –n
othi
ngM
aint
ain
thic
k ve
geta
tion
and
plan
t scr
een
bet
we
en
ped
estr
ian
acc
ess
and
we
tland
s/ve
get
atio
n.
Re
gula
r sl
ash
ing
and
mai
nte
nan
ce.
Ma
inta
in, b
ut a
lter
roa
dsid
e v
ege
tatio
n, b
yre
mo
vin
g m
angr
ove
s, p
lan
ting
scr
een
&e
nco
urag
ing
nat
ive
rush
es
Iss
ue
: E
xist
ing
gra
ss a
nd
sedg
es a
re s
lash
ed,
th
insc
ree
n o
f tre
es
at e
nd
of
Tea
lL
agoo
n
Po
sit
ive
s: lo
w c
ost.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
pote
ntia
l dis
turb
ance
imp
acts
on
we
tlan
ds
from
pa
ssin
g tr
affi
c, r
educ
ed
bird
ha
bita
t, p
oss
ible
inc
rea
se in
ro
adst
rike.
Po
sit
ive
s: r
edu
ces
dist
urb
ance
imp
acts
,m
ain
tain
s b
iod
ive
rsity
va
lues
.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
esta
blis
hmen
t co
sts.
Po
sit
ive
s: im
prov
ed
vis
ibili
ty fo
rp
edes
tria
ns
and
mot
ori
sts.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
loss
of
bird
ha
bita
t, p
ossi
ble
incr
eas
e in
ro
ad s
trik
e, n
o b
uffe
r to
we
tlan
d, i
ncre
ase
d di
stur
ba
nce
imp
act
s.
Po
sit
ive
s: r
edu
ced
man
agem
ent
cos
ta
ssoc
iate
d w
ith T
eal L
ago
on (
redu
ctio
n in
man
grov
e p
rop
agu
les
to th
e la
goo
n),
mai
nta
in d
ense
scr
een
for
wa
terb
irds
,re
duce
d d
istu
rba
nce
impa
cts,
mai
nta
inb
uffe
r to
we
tlan
d.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
rem
ova
l of
ma
ngro
ves,
incr
eas
ed le
vel o
f En
viro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ctA
sse
ssm
ent
San
dpi
pe
r E
nvir
onm
ent
al
15
Apr
il 2
005/
Fin
al R
epo
rt/A
030
407
25
Tab
le 5
.2: M
anag
emen
t opt
ions
for
infr
astru
ctur
e re
quire
d to
sup
port
the
prop
osed
use
of t
he s
ubje
ct s
ite.
Op
tio
ns
Ty
pe
of
Fa
cili
ty
On
eT
wo
Th
ree
Fo
ur
1. P
layi
ng fi
elds
ligh
tsD
o no
thin
gE
nsur
e lig
hts
are
‘env
ironm
enta
l’ Ty
pe D
Iss
ue
: H
igh
-po
we
red
ligh
tsfo
r tr
aini
ng a
nd
pla
yin
g a
tn
igh
t to
be
inst
alle
d
Po
sit
ive
s: N
o c
ost
Ne
ga
tive
s:
Inte
nse
lig
hts
fro
m f
ield
sim
pact
on
wet
lan
d w
ildlif
e
Po
sit
ive
s: R
edu
ctio
n in
lig
ht p
ollu
tion
fro
mfie
lds.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
Co
st
2. P
ede
stria
n a
cce
ssD
o n
oth
ing
Ce
ntr
al a
cce
ss t
rack
with
brid
ge
over
Spe
nce
rs C
reek
Eas
tern
acc
ess
tra
ck
with
brid
ge o
ver
Spe
nce
rs C
reek
. T
rack
tra
ver
ses
reve
geta
ted
land
and
ed
ges
of w
etla
nds.
Ro
ad-s
ide
acc
ess
tra
ck a
cros
s th
e ex
istin
gro
ad
brid
ge a
nd
alo
ng t
he e
dge
of
Boy
ters
Lan
e, w
ith lo
op t
rack
/s t
hrou
gh
reve
geta
ted
hab
itat
and
we
tlan
ds.
Iss
ue
: N
eed
for
pub
lica
cces
s to
pla
yin
g fie
lds
asw
ell
as
wet
lan
ds
Po
sit
ive
s: n
o c
ost,
no
impa
cts
on
bio
div
ers
ity v
alu
es.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
und
er-u
tilis
ing
an
impo
rta
ntco
mm
unity
ass
et,
red
uced
com
mun
itya
war
ene
ss a
nd
edu
catio
n.
Po
sit
ive
s: e
nco
urag
es p
eop
le t
o m
ove
thro
ug
h th
e w
etla
nd
, edu
catio
n a
nd
com
mun
ity a
wa
rene
ss.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
imp
act
s o
n w
etla
ndb
iod
ive
rsity
, lit
ter
dis
posa
l, a
cce
ss b
y p
est
spec
ies
(do
gs,
cats
), h
igh
est
ablis
hm
ent
cost
, hig
h le
vel o
f di
stu
rban
ce, p
ote
ntia
lA
SS
impa
cts
from
bri
dge
an
d co
nso
lidat
ing
Ma
in B
erm
.
Po
sit
ive
s: e
nco
urag
es p
eop
le t
o m
ove
thro
ug
h th
e w
etla
nd
wit
hout
impa
cts
onw
etla
nd
va
lues
, ed
uca
tion
an
d c
om
mun
itya
war
ene
ss.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
high
cos
t o
f brid
ge a
nd p
ath
cons
truc
tion
and
ma
inte
nan
ce,
enc
ou
rag
es
use
by
peop
le n
ot i
nte
rest
ed in
the
we
tlan
d,
pot
ent
ial A
SS
impa
cts
from
bri
dge,
ac
cess
by
pe
st s
pe
cie
s (l
ocal
kn
owle
dg
e su
gges
tsn
ot c
urr
ent
ly p
robl
emat
ic),
dis
turb
ance
of
bird
s.
Po
sit
ive
s: lo
wer
bri
dge
cos
t, e
nsu
res
that
we
tlan
d w
alkw
ay i
s us
ed
mor
e f
ore
duca
tion
al p
urp
ose
s th
an
for
pla
yin
g fi
eld
acc
ess,
low
er
impa
cts
on
we
tland
bio
div
ers
ity,
impr
ove
d e
duca
tion
al v
alue
.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
high
er c
ost
ass
ocia
ted
with
pat
h c
onst
ruc
tion
, pe
st s
pec
ies.
3. B
ird
Hid
es
Do
no
thin
gC
onst
ruct
on
e bi
rd h
ide
ne
ar T
eal L
ago
on.
Co
nstr
uct
tw
o o
r m
ore
bir
d h
ides
Iss
ue
: P
ote
ntia
l for
com
mun
ity e
njo
yme
nt a
nd
edu
cati
on in
env
iro
nmen
tal
valu
es
Po
sit
ive
s: lo
w c
ost.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
low
er e
duc
atio
nal v
alu
es,
enc
our
age
pe
ople
to m
ove
clo
ser
to b
irds
pos
sibl
y in
crea
sin
g d
istu
rba
nce
.
Po
sit
ive
s: in
cre
ase
d e
duc
atio
na
l val
ue,
allo
ws
for
on
goin
g u
se o
f th
e w
etla
nd
by
bird
wat
che
rs.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
esta
blis
hmen
t an
dm
ain
ten
anc
e c
osts
, po
ten
tial v
anda
lism
.
Po
sit
ive
s: p
rovi
des
add
ition
al v
iew
ing
opp
ortu
niti
es.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
add
ition
al c
onst
ruct
ion
an
dm
ain
ten
anc
e e
xpen
se,
pot
ent
ial v
and
alis
m.
4. I
nte
rpre
tive
sig
na
geD
o n
oth
ing
Pro
vid
e in
terp
retiv
e si
gna
ge
at k
ey
loca
tion
s al
ong
the
wa
lkin
g tr
ack
an
d a
tvi
ew
ing
pla
tfor
m/s
, bir
d hi
de/s
etc
. In
clu
dee
xpla
nat
ory
sig
nag
e re
gar
din
g p
rohi
bitio
no
f dom
estic
an
ima
ls.
Iss
ue
: P
ote
ntia
l for
exp
lan
atio
n o
f th
ee
nvir
onm
ent i
ncre
ase
se
njo
ymen
t an
du
nder
stan
ding
Po
sit
ive
s: n
o e
xpe
nditu
re r
equi
red
.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
does
no
t sa
tisfy
ed
uca
tiona
la
ims,
und
er-u
tilis
es
an im
po
rtan
tco
mm
unity
res
ourc
e.
Po
sit
ive
s: A
ssis
ts w
ith t
he
edu
catio
n o
fst
ude
nts
and
the
co
mm
unity
, en
sure
s th
atu
ngui
ded
gro
ups
gai
n k
now
led
ge a
bou
tw
etla
nd
s, p
ote
ntia
l to
invo
lve
Ab
orig
inal
peo
ple.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
esta
blis
hmen
t an
dm
ain
ten
anc
e c
osts
.
San
dpi
pe
r E
nvir
onm
ent
al
15
Apr
il 2
005/
Fin
al R
epo
rt/A
030
407
26
Tab
le 5
.2 c
ont.
Man
ag
em
ent
Un
itO
pti
on
s
On
eT
wo
Th
ree
Fo
ur
5. V
iew
ing
Pla
tfor
mD
o n
oth
ing
Con
stru
ct o
ne
vie
win
g p
latfo
rm n
ear
th
eso
uth
ern
end
of
the
cen
tra
l in
let
and
the
cons
truc
ted
we
tland
.
Co
nstr
uct
two
or
mor
e p
latf
orm
s.
Iss
ue
: O
ppor
tun
ity f
or b
ette
ro
bse
rva
tions
of w
etla
nds
Po
sit
ive
s: n
o c
ost,
no
risk
of
ong
oin
gd
istu
rba
nce
impa
cts.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
redu
ced
edu
catio
nal
exp
erie
nce
, u
nder
-util
ise
d re
sou
rce.
Po
sit
ive
s: E
nhan
ced
edu
cati
onal
exp
erie
nce
.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
esta
blis
hmen
t an
dm
ain
ten
anc
e c
osts
, di
stu
rba
nce
tow
ate
rfo
wl,
pot
ent
ial v
and
alis
m.
Po
sit
ive
s: E
nhan
ced
edu
cati
onal
exp
erie
nce
.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
esta
blis
hmen
t an
dm
ain
ten
anc
e c
osts
, ris
k o
f dis
turb
ance
to
wa
terf
ow
l, p
ote
ntia
l va
ndal
ism
.
6. V
ehi
cle
co
ntro
lD
o n
oth
ing
Inte
gra
te t
raffi
c c
alm
ing
de
vice
s in
to r
oad
des
ign
.E
nfo
rce
a 4
0km
/hr
spe
ed z
one
an
d in
sta
llsi
gn
age.
Iss
ue
: In
crea
sed
vehi
cle
pre
sen
ce a
long
Boy
ters
La
ne
Po
sit
ive
s: n
o a
dd
itio
nal c
osts
.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
ong
oin
g im
pac
t of
ve
hicl
e st
rike
on
bird
s cr
oss
ing
Boy
ters
Lan
e.
Po
sit
ive
s: r
edu
ced
roa
d st
rike.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
incr
eas
ed
cost
, ris
k of
inju
ry t
od
rive
rs.
Po
sit
ive
s: r
edu
ced
risk
of
road
str
ike
,lo
we
r co
sts
, lo
we
r ris
k o
f in
jury
to p
ub
lic.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
esta
blis
hmen
t co
st.
7. P
icn
ic f
acili
ties
Do
no
thin
gP
rovi
de
pic
nic
fac
ilitie
s ne
ar th
eso
uth
east
ern
corn
er o
f th
e s
ite
Iss
ue
: O
ppor
tun
ity f
orco
mm
unity
to e
njo
y cr
eek
-si
de
en
viro
nmen
t
Po
sit
ive
s: n
o e
sta
blis
hm
ent
or
mai
nte
na
nce
cos
t.
Ne
ga
tive
s:
re
duce
d c
omm
uni
ty u
se,
red
uce
d e
duca
tion
al e
xper
ien
ce, i
mp
acts
fro
m in
form
al u
se.
Po
sit
ive
s: e
na
ble
s m
an
agem
ent
ofre
cre
atio
nal
use
, red
uced
imp
acts
,e
nhan
ced
we
tland
an
d cr
eek
exp
erie
nce
Ne
ga
tive
s:
esta
blis
hmen
t an
dm
ain
ten
anc
e c
ost,
po
ssib
le d
istu
rban
ceim
pact
s un
less
faci
litie
s a
re a
ppr
opria
tely
des
ign
ed,
inc
rea
sed
nee
d fo
r ot
her
faci
litie
ssu
ch a
s to
ilets
.
Sandpiper Environmental
15 April 2005/Final Report/A030407 27
5.2 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
Biodiversity
Ensure that management results in a net gain in biodiversity over the entire site andspecifically no loss of biodiversity in extant wetlands and a gain in degraded terrestrialgrasslands.
Wetland Diversity
Promote the development of a mosaic of different wetland types that reflect the diversity of
wetland habitats on the Macleay River Floodplain.
Education
Provide an educational experience that is both unique and informative and has a central aimof increasing the communities’ awareness of the role of floodplain and estuarine wetlands.
Provide opportunities for a-hands-on wetland experience that has minimal impact on wetlandvalues.
Community
Provide facilities and promotional material that enable the community to appreciate and learnabout the Boyters Lane wetland.
Management
Implement an adaptive management approach that balances the biodiversity values of theexisting wetlands with the need to restore degraded wetland habitats.
Sandpiper Environmental
15 April 2005/Final Report/A030407 28
6 PREFERRED MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
Preferred management options for each management units and facilities are listed below, witha justification for why that option is preferred.
Table 6.1: Preferred management options for each land management unit.
Management Unit Preferred Option Rationale
West Side of Teal Lagoon Create freshwater wetland with bufferplantings (Option 1.2 in Table 5.1).
Biodiversity benefits and reducesthe potential for impacts on TealLagoon.
North edge of Playing Fields Encourage expansion of saltmarsh(Option 2.2 in Table 5.1).
Promotes the expansion of anEndangered Ecological Communityand provides a buffer betweenextant saltmarsh and mangrovesand the playing fields.
Teal Lagoon Repair berm replace pipes with dropboard structure - manage as brackishlagoon for waterbirds, controlmangroves, inlcude small low is land ofappropriate design (Option 3.2 in Table5.2)
This option increases fish passageand improves water quality andwetland health, whilst at the sametime maintaining waterbird values.There is some level of uncertaintyregarding the feasibility ofexcluding mangrove seeds.
Western Elevated Land Create native grassland/sedgeland(Option 4.4 in Table 5.1).
Provides long-term foraging habitatfor grass owl, increases thebiodiversity value of degradedgrassland habitat and maintainssight distances for waterbirds usingTeal Lagoon.
Estuary Remove concrete pipe on eastern inlet(Option 5.2 in Table 5.1).
Maintains the current managementregime, with the removal of a pipethat is currently having no influenceon water movement.
Middle Inlet Remove berm and increase tidal flows(Option 6.3 in Table 5.1).
Increase fish passage, improvewetland health and reduces thepotential for ongoing managementof the berm.
Central Elevated Revegetation – mix of swamp forest,sedges and rainforest depending onelevation (Option 7.2 in Table 5.1).
Increased biodiversity andeducational value of degradedgrassland.
Dotterel Inlet Repair berm and maintain existing tidalexchange {in the short term (Option8.2 in Table 5.1)}
Maintain current managementregime for 3-5 years and observehow habitat in the Middle Inletresponds to increased tidalexchange.
East Elevated Revegetation – mix of swamp forest,sedges and rainforest depending onelevation (Option 9.2 in Table 5.1).
Increased biodiversity andeducational value of degradedgrassland.
Roadside Vegetation Maintain, but alter roadside vegetation,by removing mangroves, plantingscreen & encouraging native rushes(Option 10.4 in Table 5.1).
Encourages fauna habitat, providesa buffer to wetlands and reducesongoing cost of mangrove controlin Teal Lagoon.
Sandpiper Environmental
15 April 2005/Final Report/A030407 29
Table 6.2: Preferred management options for each type of facility.
Type of Facility Preferred Option Rationale
Playing fields l ights Ensure lights are ‘environmental’Type D (Option 1.2 in Table 5.2)
Reduces the impact of lights onwaterbirds and other wetland fauna.
Pedestrian Access Road-side access track across theexisting road bridge and along theedge of Boyters Lane, with looptrack/s through revegetated habitatand wetlands. (Option 2.4 in Table5.2)
Reduces the likelihood of throughtraffic, which will reduce littering andthe occurrence of domestic animals.
Bird Hides Construct one bird hide near TealLagoon (Option 3.2 in Table 5.2).
A bird hide would increasecommunity enjoyment andeducation. One hide is consideredappropriate given the type and sizeof wetlands present.
Interpretive Signage Provide interpretive signage at keylocations along the walking trackand at viewing platform/s, birdhide/s etc. Include explanatorysignage regarding prohibition ofdomestic animals (Option 4.2 inTable 5.2).
Interpretive signage is consideredas fundamental to enhance theeducational experience of personsusing the wetland.
Viewing Platform Do-nothing (in the short term) until itcan be determined that anobservation platform is benefic ial.(Option 5.1 in Table 5.2)
A viewing platform is not consideredessential in the initial (3-5 year)stage of this plan.
Vehicle Control (along Boyters Lane) Enforce a 40km/hr speed zone andinstall signage to warn motoriststhat wildlife cross in that area(Option 6.3 in Table 5.2).
Reducing the speed limit andproviding signage may reduce therisk of road strike to fauna crossingBoyters Lane.
Picnic Facilities Provide picnic facil ities near thesoutheastern corner of the site(Option 7.2 in Table 5.2)
Picnic facilities would complimentthe interpretive signage in increaseboth the recreational and educationexperience of vis itors to thewetland. It also provides a means ofcontroll ing visitor use of the site.
7 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Boyters Lane wetland provides an insight into the range of issues that affect the
management of many floodplain wetlands in northern NSW. Management of modifiedwetlands requires a balance between restoring degraded habitats whilst at the same timeconsidering the requirements of species that have colonised the modified system. There is ageneral trend towards full restoration of tidal floodplain wetlands, however, this process isoccurring without strategic consideration of the extent to which other wetland types have beenmodified and are continuing to degrade.
Boyters Lane provides an opportunity to manage a site to ensure the long-term viability of a
variety of wetland types and manage waterbird and fish habitat. Management of the estuarineand elevated lands is fairly straightforward, however a flexible approach is required for othermanagement units. It is proposed to restore tidal exchange to Middle Inlet, monitor DotterelInlet in the short-term to assess the affect of full tidal exchange on the nearby Middle Inlet andmanage Teal Lagoon to promote waterbird habitat.
Management of Teal Lagoon provides the greatest challenge. There is a good argument forremoving the berm and restoring full tidal exchange to the lagoon, however, this would reduce
Sandpiper Environmental
15 April 2005/Final Report/A030407 30
the value of the lagoon for waterbirds and possibly reduce the educational experience byremoving a good waterbird habitat from the subject site.
The concept of limiting the spread of mangrove seeds or controlling extant mangroves in TealLagoon is controversial and would require additional cost. An appropriate structure to allow
fish passage, stop mangrove seeds and improve tidal flushing is not available, although it islikely that one of the existing pipe/culvert designs could be modified to satisfy theserequirements. One point that seems clear is that increased tidal flushing of the Lagoon islikely to improve water quality and the value of habitat to waterbirds.
Recommendations
Liaise with a local university to encourage research into fish and invertebratecommunities on the subject site. Research could also consider how anychanges in tidal exchange influence fish passage.
Remove all mangroves from within Teal Lagoon to reduce the ongoing
management cost associated with mangrove control.
The screen currently created by mangroves at the southern end of TealLagoon should be replaced by native shrubs and Phragmites.
Refuge sites for frogs and reptiles should be created as part of rehabilitationwork. Refuge sites may include placing fallen timber or fence poststhroughout rehabilitation areas.
The revegetation of grassland habitat should be staged to minimise impactson grass owls.
Elevated land to the east of Teal Lagoon should be planted with nativesedges and grasses to provide foraging habitat for grass owls and maintainsight distances for waterbirds.
Restrict slashing of roadside vegetation to within 1m of the road edge.
The impact of any works on threatened species should be assessed inaccordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.
Integrate and osprey nesting pole into the design of the sports fields toreduce the likelihood that ospreys will construct nests on the sports fieldlights. The osprey pole could be situated near Teal Lagoon or the estuarine
habitat and should be higher than the light poles, with a nest platform androost perches integrated into the design.
Sandpiper Environmental
15 April 2005/Final Report/A030407 31
8 REFERENCES
Higgins, P. J. & Davies, S. J. J. (1996). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and AntarcticBirds. Volume 3: Snipe to pigeons. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
Kempsey Shire Council (2004). Consultant Brief: Boyters Lane Wetland & Playing Fields
Management Plan. Kempsey Shire Council.Kingsford, R. T. & Norman, F. I. (2002). Australian waterbirds – products of the continents
ecology. Emu: 102, 47-70.Lawler, W. (1996). Guidelines for management of migratory shorebird habitat in southern east
coast estuaries, Australia. Unpublished Masters of Resource Science, University of NewEngland, Armidale.
Marchant, S. & Higgins, P. J. (1991). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and AntarcticBirds. Volume 2: Raptors to Lapwings. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
McNeil, R., Drapeau, P, & Goss-Custard, J. D. (1992). The occurrence and adaptivesignificance of nocturnal habits in waterfowl. Biological Review: 67, 381-419.
Melville, D. S. (1997). Threats to waders along the East Asian-Australasian Flyway, pages 15– 34 in Shorebird Conservation in the Asia-Pacific Region, (ed P. Straw), AustralasianWader Studies Group, Melbourne.
Nelson, D. C. (1994). The effect & management of human disturbances on wading birds,Richmond River Estuary, Ballina, NSW. Unpublished Integrated Project, Southern Cross
University, Lismore.Pressey, R. L. & Harris, J. H. (1988). Wetlands of NSW, pages 35-57 in The Conservation of
Australian Wetlands (Eds A. J. McComb & P. S. Lake), Surrey Beatty & Sons, ChippingNorton.
Priest, B., Straw, P. & Weston, M. (2002). Shorebird Conservation in Australia. Supplement toWingspan, vol 12, no. 4. Birds Australia, Melbourne.
Rohweder, D. A. (2000). Day-Night habitat use by five species of migratory shorebird in theRichmond River Estuary, northern NSW, Australia. Unpublished PhD Thesis, SCU.
Rohweder, D. A. & Baverstock, P. R. (1996). Preliminary investigation of nocturnal habitat useby migratory waders in northern NSW. Wildlife Research: 23, 169-184.
Rohweder, D. A. & Lewis B. L. (2001). Day-night habitat use by Double-banded Plovers(Charadrius bicinctus) in the Richmond River Estuary, northern NSW. Corella:
Saintilan, N. & Williams, R. J. (1999). Mangrove transgression into saltmarsh environments insoutheast Australia. Global Ecology & Biogeography: 8, 117-124.
Saintilan, N. (2003). Balancing shorebird habitat requirements with mangrove conservation,pages 15-19 in Status and Management of Migratory Shorebirds in Sydney (ed P. Straw),
Sydney Olympic Park Authority, Sydney.