Significant Project assessment impact criteria  Monitoring water quality conditions during project construction to allow for adaptive management. Applying the prescribed management measures, the potential risk for direct and indirect impacts to the white-throated snapping turtle are expected to be reduced to minor disruption of individuals and minor degradation of habitat within the immediate area of the project construction footprint. Individual turtles may be temporarily displaced into suitable habitat adjacent to the project construction footprint with their return expected following completion of construction activities. As such, no significant impact to the long- term size of the white-throated snapping turtle population is expected to occur.

Reduce the Unlikely. area of occupancy The white throated snapping turtle occurs within the from the Mary River of the barrage, near Tiaro, to Kenilworth in the upper catchment. The species also inhabits species main tributaries with permanent water including Tinana Creek, Wide Bay Creek, Obi Obi Creek and Yabba Creek (Limous 2008; TSSC 2014). The white-throated snapping turtle was confirmed present within Creek during field surveys and with three (3) historical records of the species within 5 km of the site. These individuals are the furthest upstream records of the species within the Tinana/Coondoo Creek system. The area of occupancy of the white-throated snapping turtle is not predicted to be permanently impacted by the replacement of the Coondoo Creek bridge. Flow and turtle movement will not be restricted by the new bridge and the capture of the species immediately adjacent to the existing bridge demonstrates that this species has a tolerance to the levels of noise and vibration disturbance that are expected during bridge operation. As discussed for the assessment above, without appropriate management, pre- construction and construction phase activities have the potential to reduce the suitability of habitat for the white-throated snapping turtle within and adjacent to the project construction footprint. Potential impacts to habitat suitability are temporary and will cease at the completion of construction. Water quality degradation is the key risk for long-term potential impacts to white-throated snapping turtle habitat within and downstream of the project construction footprint. Potential impacts to the white-throated snapping turtle as a result of water quality degradation may include smothering of foraging resources, filling pool habitat, alteration in habitat characteristics and impacts to turtle physiology and behaviour. As a bimodally respiring species, the white-throated snapping turtle is particularly susceptible to changes in water quality with reduced oxygen levels and increased water temperature known to decrease a turtle’s ability to respire aquatically (Clark 2008). Decreased reliance on aquatic respiration decreases the amount of time a turtle can spend underwater and increases surfacing frequency. These changes in diving behaviour have the potential to result in reduced time available for foraging, increased energy expenditure during surfacing and increased predation levels (Clark 2008). Strict management actions (as detailed for the assessment above) will be implemented during all phases of the project to manage potential impacts. Applying the prescribed management measures, the potential impacts to aquatic habitat suitability for the white-throated snapping turtle are expected to be minor. No direct loss of aquatic habitat will occur and, as such, the project is not expected to significantly impact the area of occupancy of the species.

Fragment an The new bridge has been designed to completely span the river and the support piers existing will be located within the low flow channel to avoid disruption of flows during low flow population conditions or generation of turbulence during high flow conditions. Footings will be as into two or small as practical and adjacent the existing bridge foundation to minimise area affected more by development. This species currently persists in the area in conjunction with the populations existing bridge development. Upstream and downstream movement of the white- throated snapping turtle is not expected to be inhibited and as such, no fragmentation of the population is expected to occur. Maintaining aquatic fauna passage has been a key design feature of project pre-construction and construction methodology. Water flows will be maintained within the existing channel and alternative design solutions are proposed to avoid construction of a rock platform within the creek, which would alter flows and degrade habitat. While construction activities may restrict turtles from moving through the area due to disturbance (i.e. noise and vibration), these impacts will be temporary and will cease at the completion of construction. Overall, pre-construction, construction and operation of the bridge is not expected to significantly inhibit upstream and downstream movement of the white-throated snapping

GHD | Report for TMR – Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement IMP, 4129972| 45

Significant Project assessment impact criteria turtles and fragmentation of the population is not predicted to occur result from the proposed action.

Adversely Unlikely. affect habitat Due to extremely high predation rates of turtle nests, there is a deficiency of immature critical to the turtle within the white-throated snapping turtle population (Limpus 2008). The capture of survival of a three (3) juvenile turtles within the project survey areas may suggest that Coondoo species Creek in an important habitat area for facilitating juvenile recruitment into the breeding population and for the long-term maintenance of the species. As such, Coondoo Creek within the project survey area is considered habitat critical for the survival of the species. No adverse impacts to habitat critical to the survival of the white-throated snapping turtle are expected to occur as a result of bridge operation. As discussed for the assessment above, without appropriate management, pre-construction and construction phase activities have the potential to adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the species by reducing the suitability of habitat within and adjacent to the project construction footprint. Potential impacts to habitat suitability are temporary and will cease at the completion of construction. Water quality degradation is the key risk for long-term potential impacts to white-throated snapping turtle habitat within and downstream of the project construction footprint. Strict management actions will be implemented during all phases of the project to manage this potential impact (see management measures listed for the assessment above). Monitoring of water quality conditions will also occur to identify the potential for water quality degradation and allow for adaptive management. Applying the prescribed management measures, the potential impacts to aquatic habitat suitability for the white-throated snapping turtle are expected to be minor and temporary. As such, the project is not expected to significantly impact habitat critical to the survival of the species.

Disrupt the Unlikely. breeding cycle of a White-throated snapping turtle is thought to aggregate nesting at traditional nesting population sites. Within the Mary River catchment, nesting aggregations have been recorded near Tiaro, the junction with , , upstream from and along Obi Obi Creek (Limpus 2008). These sites are located within an alternative branch of the Mary River. Aggregated nesting of the species has not been recorded within the Tinana/Coondoo Creek reach; however, the capture of juvenile turtles within the project construction footprint suggests nesting habitat may occur within the lower reaches of Coondoo Creek or upper reaches of Tinana Creek above Tallegalla Weir. The suitability of nesting habitat within the project survey area is limited by the density of riparian bank vegetation and Lomandra longifolia at the water’s edge. Target surveys for nesting habitat confirmed turtle nesting is unlikely to occur within the project construction footprint or within 2 km upstream and downstream (GHD 2017; Appendix C). As a result, the project is not likely to disrupt the breeding cycle of the species such that species decline would occur.

Modify, Unlikely. destroy, remove or Operation of the new bridge will have minimal impact on the aquatic environment within isolate or the project survey area as the new bridge will span the river and piers will be located decrease outside the low flow channel to avoid disruption of flows during low flow conditions and the generation of turbulence during high flow conditions. Minor habitat loss will be availability experienced under the immediate footprint of the bridge piers and land junction. Habitat or quality of degradation and disturbance as a result of traffic noise, vibration disturbance, rubbish habitat to and run-off are expected to decrease from existing levels as a result of improved bridge the extent design. As such, potential impacts to the availability and quality of white-throated that the snapping turtle habitat is limited to disturbance during the pre-construction and species is construction periods. likely to decline As discussed for the assessment above, without appropriate management, pre- construction and construction phase activities have the potential to decease the availability and quality of white-throated snapping turtle habitat within and adjacent to the project construction footprint. Potential impacts to habitat suitability are temporary and will cease at the completion of construction. Water quality degradation is the key risk for long-term potential impacts to white-throated snapping turtle habitat within and

46 | GHD | Report for TMR – Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement IMP, 4129972

Significant Project assessment impact criteria downstream of the project construction footprint. Strict management actions will be implemented during all phases of the project to manage this potential impact (see management measures listed for the assessment above). Monitoring of water quality conditions will also occur to identify the potential for water quality degradation and allow for adaptive management. Applying the prescribed management measures, the potential impacts to aquatic habitat suitability for the white-throated snapping turtle are expected to be minor and temporary. As such, the project is not expected to significantly modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the white-throated snapping turtle is likely to decline.

Result in Unlikely. invasive species that Degradation of potential white-throated snapping turtle nesting habitat from cattle are harmful trampling and excessive weed growth is widespread in the Mary River catchment to a critically reducing the suitability of habitat for turtle nesting in many areas. Where nesting does endangered occur, predation by native and introduced fauna (i.e. foxes, pigs, goannas, feral cats, or and water rats) is extremely high, with close to 100 percent of clutches predated each endangered season (Limpus et al. 2011; Limpus 2008). The high mortality of eggs has led to little to species no recruitment of hatchlings into the population over the last decade. This lack of becoming recruitment into the population has been identified as the key threatening process to the established species (TSSC 2014). in the critically Without appropriate management, pre-construction and construction phase activities endangered have the potential to increase the presence of introduced weed and pest species that or can degrade turtle nesting habitat suitability and predate upon turtle nests. The endangered suitability of habitat within the project survey area for turtle nesting is limited as a result species’ of the density of riparian bank vegetation and Lomandra longifolia at the water’s edge habitat (GHD 2016a; 2017). Nesting of the white-throated snapping turtle within the project survey area is therefore considered unlikely to occur. Implementation of best practice weed and pest management techniques coupled with erosion and sediment management controls will reduce the likelihood of potential impacts to turtle nesting habitats located further downstream of the project construction footprint. The management actions proposed for the control of weed and pest species are considered sufficient such that no significant impact to the white-throated snapping turtle and/or the species’ habitat is likely to occur.

Introduce Unlikely. disease that may cause The bridge replacement project is unlikely to result in the introduction of disease into the the species environment given that no biotic materials will be introduced to site and that construction to decline, equipment will be free of weeds and soils which could transfer diseases. Project or construction activities do, however, have the potential to result in the degradation of water quality. This could lead to degradation of turtle habitat and food resources affecting turtle health with a subsequent increase in disease prevalence (Limpus et al. 2011; DERM 2008). As a biomodally respiring species, the white-throated snapping turtle is likely to be more susceptible to the impacts of poor water quality and water borne disease than primarily air-breathing species (Clark 2008; DERM 2008). Best practice management procedures for the control of erosion and sedimentation and waste and hazardous materials will be implemented to minimise risks such that decline in white-throated snapping turtles as a result of disease introduction is not expected.

Interfere Unlikely. substantially with the There is no approved recovery plan for the white-throated snapping turtle; however, the recovery of DotE Conservation Advice (TSSC 2014) and management plan for the species within the species. the Burnett River catchment (Hamann et al. 2007) includes management strategies for the recovery and maintenance of the species:  Improving recruitment of hatchlings into the population via protection of nests and hatchery programs;  Maintaining functional turtle nesting banks throughout the catchment, including restriction of cattle access to river banks and predator control;  Maintaining stream flow and high quality in-river habitat between impoundments;

GHD | Report for TMR – Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement IMP, 4129972| 47

Significant Project assessment impact criteria  Managing water levels so as to avoid inundation of nesting banks during the incubation period;  Maintaining continuity of population throughout the catchment;  Reducing the incidence of death and physical injury to turtles at existing and future impoundment structures;  Managing recreational fishing and boating activities in impoundments to be compatible with the maintenance of sustainable turtle populations and reduce unnecessary injury to turtles;  Improving water quality within the lower Fitzroy catchment;  Increasing the area of river and adjacent riverine habitat managed for conservation purposes;  Increasing stake-holder, including Indigenous traditional owners, participation in conservation and management processes; and  Monitoring the response of turtle populations in each catchment to the management strategies and evaluate their effectiveness of these strategies and modify them accordingly. The proposed action will not interfere with any of these recovery actions. As such, the project is not expected to interfere with the recovery of the species..

48 | GHD | Report for TMR – Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement IMP, 4129972

6. Conclusion

Coondoo Creek is an area of high ecological significance that supports a number of conservation significant species within both the terrestrial and aquatic environments. Species known or likely to occur within the project study area include:

 Macrozamia pauli-guilielmi;  Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus);

 Glossy black-cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami);

 Wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula);  Mary River cod (Maccullochella mariensis);

 Australian lungfish (Neoceratodus fosteri);

 Oxleyan pygmy perch (Nannoperca oxleyana);

 White-throated snapping turtle (Elseya albagula); and

 Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus).

The project construction footprint will be a maximum of 5.82 ha in total area comprising a 1.25 ha of native vegetation and 4.57 ha of existing cleared road easement. The project construction footprint will be located along 48 m length of Coondoo Creek deep permanent pool habitat. Key activities associated with the construction process that require management for the protection of the existing ecological values include: vegetation clearing and earthworks, relocation of the high voltage powerline, installation of the substructure including boring of bridge piles, installation of the superstructure, removal of the old bridge superstructure and restoration works.

Potential impacts associated with the project construction include:

 Loss of conservation significant flora;  Loss and degradation of terrestrial habitat;

 Loss and degradation of aquatic habitat;

 Noise, vibration and light disturbance;  Injury and/or mortality; and

 Proliferation of weed and pest species.

TMR is committed to the protection of the ecological values within Coondoo Creek and project design and construction methodology has been specifically developed for impact avoidance and minimising the key risks. Bridge design is a key avoidance measure for the project with the geometry of the bridge modified from business case design to span the creek as best as possible. This has been achieved by including a 33 m concrete Super T girder across the low flow channel and avoiding the requirement for bridge piles to be located within the channel of the creek. This design will avoid additional loss of aquatic habitat, potential impacts to hydrology and fauna movement and will improve existing conditions. Increasing the length of the bridge decking and removing the bridge piles from within the creek will also substantially contribute the avoidance of environmental impacts during project construction. Best practice construction techniques have been specifically selected to avoid direct works within Coondoo Creek wherever possible. These construction techniques will substantially reduce the potential for impacts to conservation significant species. Avoidance and reduction measures will include the following commitments:

GHD | Report for TMR – Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement IMP, 4129972| 49

 A falsework platform will be used for substructure (i.e. piles, pile caps, columns) construction – a falsework platform will be suspended above the creek banks on mini- piles installed outside of the low flow channel. Pile boring equipment and other construction machinery (cranes, etc) can work from the suspended platform rather than working from an earth-fill pad which would require the placement of rock and other fill material within the low flow channel. This approach will have a significantly lower impact to Coondoo Creek and conservation significant species than that associated with the construction of an earth-fill pad.

 Bored piles with a screw in casing will be used during bridge construction – the use of bored piles with a screw in casing will significantly reduce noise and vibration impacts to conservation significant species. This construction technique has been specifically selected to avoid the high potential for injury and mortality of conservation significant species associated with vibrations from driven piles. Underwater noise monitoring undertaken for the project confirms that the character and level of the pile-boring noise within Coondoo Creek during project construction will be similar in character and level to existing traffic noise.

 Bridge superstructure will be installed from the existing banks, constructed road embankment or bridge spans already constructed – the use of existing structures for construction will avoid direct impacts to Coondoo Creek during superstructure construction and will reduce the clearing of adjacent native vegetation.

 High risk construction works will be scheduled from April to August to align with the dry season and/or a period of low rainfall and minimal to no flows. This period will reduce the risk of erosion, run-off and transport of sediment downstream during flooding events. Construction of high risk works from April to August will also avoid disruption to the breeding season of the Mary River cod (September to November). No other suitable breeding habitat for conservation significant species occurs within the project construction footprint.

In addition to the avoidance and reduction measures, best practice construction techniques and stringent site specific management actions have been specifically selected to further minimise potential risks to conservation significant species. These mitigation measures include the following key actions:

 ‘Environmental management’ will be included as a non-price criteria in the tendering process for appointment of the construction contractor. This will facilitate the appointment of a construction contractor who is committed to environmental management and has a track record in achieving environmental outcomes.

 Contractual controls will be implemented and will include pre-qualifications and hold points. This will prevent project construction progressing until all environmental management requirements have been completed and performance criteria achieved.

 A project-specific ESCP will be prepared by TMR to manage sediment from construction works and minimise impacts on water quality. The ESCP will be prepared and implemented in accordance with IECA Best Practice Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines and TMR Specifications MRTS52 Erosion and Sediment Control. The ESCP will be prepared by a highly experienced CPESC.

 A stringent project-specific EMP (construction) will be prepared by TMR and included in contract conditions of the construction contractor. The EMP (construction) will be in accordance with TMR Specification MRTS51 and will detail performance criteria, monitoring requirements and adaptive management to achieve proposed environmental outcomes.

50 | GHD | Report for TMR – Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement IMP, 4129972

 Water quality conditions will be monitored (visual and in situ recordings) to identify the potential for water quality degradation within Coondoo Creek and the Melaleuca swamp habitat and allow for adaptive management. Water quality monitoring will be conducted prior to construction and will continue during and post construction. In accordance with the Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009), adaptive management would be required if water quality values exceed the natural 90th percentiles (or below natural 10th percentiles) during normal baseflow conditions.

 Underwater noise levels will be monitoring to identify the potential risk of noise impacts to MNES species during construction and allow for adaptive management. Adaptive management would be required if noise levels exceed the guideline criteria for avoidance of impact.

 Rehabilitation and revegetation of exposed surfaces and redundant road sections will be undertaken on completion of construction activities or progressively where possible. Bank morphology will be restored to existing conditions.

The assessment of ecological values within the project construction footprint and potential impacts of the proposed works has identified that the project has the potential to impact threatened species protected under the EPBC Act. As such, an assessment was made for the relevant species with regard to the EPBC Act significant impact criteria (DotE 2013). The results of the EPBC Act significant impact assessment indicate that applying the prescribed management and mitigation measures appropriately will manage potential risks to these species and their habitat. As such, the project is not considered likely to have a significant impact on the population of these threatened species in the Mary River catchment.

Due to the ecological significance of the project construction footprint for a number of threatened species and the potential for adverse impacts without suitable management, referral of the project to DEE under the EPBC Act is recommended.

GHD | Report for TMR – Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement IMP, 4129972| 51

7. References

Australia’s Virtual Herbarium (AVH) (2016) Specimen label information for Macrozamia pauli- guilielmi. Council of Heads of Australia Herbaria, viewed 28 October 2016 from: http://avh.chah.org.au Allen, G. R. (1989) Freshwater fishes of Australia. T. F. H. Publications, Neptune City, NJ. 240 pages. Arthington, A. H. (1996) Recovery plan for the Oxleyan pygmy perch Nannoperca oxleyana. Final report to the Australian Nature Conservation Agency. 129pp. Armstrong, G and Booth, DT (2005). Dietary ecology of the Australian freshwater turtle (Elseya sp.: Chelonia: Chelidae) in the Burnett River, Queensland, Wildlife Research, vol. 32, pp. 349– 353. Brooks, S.G. and Kind, P.K. (2002) Ecology and demography of the Qld lungfish (Neoceratodus forsteri) in the Burnett River, Queensland: with reference to the impacts of Walla Weir and future water infrastructure development, Final report prepared for the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

Caley (2017) Coondoo Creek bridge replacement assessment of underwater noise impacts. Report prepared for Department of Transport and Main Roads. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Environmental Analysis (2015) Technical guidance for the assessment and mitigation of the hydroacoustic effects of pile driving on fish. November 2015. Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/bio/files/bio_tech_guidance_hydroacoustic_effects_110215.pdf

Cann, J (1998). Australian freshwater turtles, Beaumont Publishing Pty Ltd, Singapore.

Cann, J. and Legler, J. M. (1994) The Mary River tortoise: a new genus and species of short- necked Chelid from Queensland, Australia (Testudines: Pleurodira). Chelonian Conservation and Biology, vol. 1, pp. 81-96. Clark, N.J. (2008) The diving physiological ecology of Australian freshwater turtle hatchlings, PhD Thesis, University of Queensland, .

Clark, N.J., Gordos, M.A. and Franklin, C.E. (2008) Diving behaviour, aquatic respiration and blood respiratory properties: a comparison of hatchling and juvenile Australian turtles. Journal of Zoology, vol 275, pp: 399-406.

Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) (2008) Fitzroy natural resource management region ‘back on track’ biodiversity action plan. Department of Environment and Resource Management, Queensland.

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) (2009) Queensland Water Quality Guidelines, Version 3, ISBN 978-0-9806986-0-2.

DEHP (2011) Platypus. https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/animals-az/platypus.html DEHP (2010) Environmental Protection (Water) Policy (2009) Mary River environmental values and water quality objectives. Basin No. 138, including all tributaries of the Mary River. Water Quality and Ecosystem Health Policy Unit, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Queensland Government.

DEHP (2013) Wallum froglet, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Queensland Government. Available from: https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/animals-az/wallum_froglet.html. Accessed 25 February 2016.

52 | GHD | Report for TMR – Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement IMP, 4129972

Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) 2016 Environmental Flows Assessment Program, Queensland Government. Department of the Environment (DotE) (2013) Matters of National Environmental Significance, Significant impact guidelines 1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Commonwealth of Australia. DotE (2014) EPBC Act referral guidelines for the vulnerable koala (combined populations of Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory). Commonwealth of Australia. DotE (2016) Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) (2010) Fauna sensitive road design manual (volume 2: preferred practices). Queensland Government. Flakus, S. (2002) Ecology of the Mary River turtle, Elusor macrurus. M.Sc. Thesis. University of Queensland. Flakus, S. and Connell, M. (2008) The Mary River turtle, yesterday, today, tomorrow. Tiaro & District Landcare Group, Queensland. GHD (2012) Coondoo Creek bridge replacement job number 261-41a-800 ecological study. Report prepared for Department of Transport and Main Roads.

GHD (2016a) Coondoo Creek bridge replacement ecological assessment October 2016, Report prepared for Department of Transport and Main Roads. GHD (2016b) Coondoo Creek bridge replacement protected plant assessment. Report prepared for Department of Transport and Main Roads. GHD (2016c) Macrozamia pauli-guilielmi Impact management plan. Report prepared for Department of Transport and Main Roads. GHD (2016d) Macrozamia pauli-guilielmi translocation plan. Report prepared for Department of Transport and Main Roads. GHD (2017) Coondoo Creek turtle basking and nesting habitat assessment. Report prepared for Department of Transport and Main Roads.

Gordos, M.A., Hamann, M., Schauble, C.S., Limpus, C.J., and Franklin, C.E. (2007) Diving behaviour of Elseya albagula from a naturally flowing and hydrologically altered habitat, Journal of Zoology, vol. 272, pp. 458-469. Grant, T.R. and Temple-Smith, P.D. (1998) Field biology of the platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus): historical and current perspectives, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 353, pp. 1081-1091.

Hamann, M, Schauble, CS, Limpus, DJ, Emerick, SP, and Limpus, CJ (2007) Management plan for the conservation of Elseya sp. (Burnett River) in the Burnett River Catchment, Queensland Environmental Protection Agency.

Harris, J.H. and Rowland, S.J. (1996) Family Percichthyidae - Australian freshwater cods and basses. In: McDowall, R.M., ed. Freshwater Fishes of South-eastern Australia. Rev. ed:150-163. Chatswood, Sydney: Reed Books. Hourigan, C. (2012) Glossy black-cockatoo, Calyptorhynchus lathami. Targeted species survey guidelines. Queensland Herbarium, Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation, Brisbane.

Ketten, D.R. (2008) Underwater ears and the physiology of impacts: comparative liability for hearing loss in sea turtles, birds, and mammals. Bioacoustics: The International Journal of Animal Sound and its Recording, vol. 17.

GHD | Report for TMR – Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement IMP, 4129972| 53

Kind, P.K. (2002) Movement patterns and habitat use in the Queensland lungfish Neoceratodus forsteri (Krefft 1870). Ph.D. Thesis. PhD Thesis, University of Queensland.

Knight, J.T. (2001) Distributional limits of the endangered Oxleyan pygmy perch Nannoperca oxleyana (Whitley 1940) in northeastern New South Wales (Research Phase 1: 31/05/2001- 28/08/2001). Unpublished report, Office of Conservation, NSW Fisheries, Port Stephens.

Limpus, C. (2008) Freshwater turtles in the Mary River: Review of biological data for turtles in the Mary River, with emphasis on Elusor macrurus and Elseya albagula. Brisbane: Queensland Government.

Limpus, C.J., Limpus, D. J., Parmenter, C.J., Hodge, J., Forrest, M.J., and McLachlan, J. (2011) The biology and management strategies for freshwater turtles in the Fitzroy Catchment, with particular emphasis on Elseya albagula and Rheodytes leukops. A study in response to the proposed construction of Rookwood Weir and the raising of Eden Bann Weir. Brisbane, Queensland Government. Mathie, N.J. and Franklin, C.E. (2006) The influence of body size on the diving behaviour and physiology of the bimodally respiring turtle Elseya albagula, Journal of Comparative Physiology B, vol. 176 pp. 739-747.

McCauley, R. D., Fewtrell, J. and Popper, A. N. (2003) High intensity anthropogenic sound damages fish ears. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 113. Meyer, E., Hero, J-M., Shoo, L. and Lewis, B. (2006) National recovery plan for the wallum sedgefrog and other wallum-dependent frog species. Report to Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Canberra. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service: Brisbane. New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI) (2005) Oxleyan pygmy perch, Nannoperca oxleyana. Recovery plan and background paper. Prepared in accordance with the threatened species provisions of the New South Wales Fisheries Management Act 1994. Commonwealth of Australia. Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) (2014) Glossy black-cockatoo, Office of Environment and Heritage, New South Wales Government. Available from: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/animals/GlossyBlackCockatoos.htm. Accessed 25 February 2016.’ O’Hara, J. and Wilcox, J. R. (1990) Avoidance responses of loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta, to low frequency sound. Copeia, vol. 2, pp. 564 – 567. Popper, A. N. (2003) Effects of anthropogenic sounds on fishes. Fisheries, vol. 28, pp. 24 – 31. Pizzey, G. and Knight, F. (2003) The field guide to the birds of Australia eight edition. Harper Collins Publishes Pty Limited, Australia. Queensland Herbarium (2007). National Multi-species Recovery Plan for the cycads, Cycas megacarpa, Cycas ophiolitica, Macrozamia cranei, Macrozamia lomandroides, Macrozamia pauli- guilielmi and Macrozamia platyrhachis Report to Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Canberra. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Brisbane.

Queensland Department of Natural Resources (Qld DNR) (2000). Species Management Manual. Forest and Fauna Conservation and Ecology Section, Queensland Department of Natural Resources.

Rogers, VM (2000). Dietary ecology including dietary resources partitioning of four species of chelid turtle in a tributary of the Fitzroy River, . BSc Honours Thesis, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton.

Simpson, R. R. (1994). An investigation into the habitat preferences and population status of the endangered Mary River cod (Maccullochella peelii mariensis) in the Mary River system, 52 south-

54 | GHD | Report for TMR – Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement IMP, 4129972

eastern Queensland. Queensland Department of Primary Industries Information Series QI94011, Brisbane.

Simpson, R. and Jackson, P. (1996) The Mary River cod research and recovery plan. Mary River Cod Recovery Team, Queensland Department of Primary Industries –Fisheries Group. Report prepared for Endangered Species Program Environment Australia Project Number ESP 505. Simpson, R.R. and Mapleston A.J. (2002) Movements and habitat use by the endangered Australian freshwater Mary River Cod Maccullochella peelii mariensis. Environmental Biology of Fishes. Vol. 65, pp. 401-410.

Slabbekoorn, H., Bouton, N., van Opzeeland, I., Coers, A., ten Cate, C. and Popper, A.N. (2010) A noisy spring: the impact of globally rising underwater sound levels on fish. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 1243. Thompson, C., Arthington, A., Kennard, M. (2000) Oxleyan pygmy perch Nannoperca oxleyana Whitley, 1940. Australian Society for Fish Biology Newsletter, vol. 30 (1), pp. 31-32.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) (2014) Commonwealth conservation advice on Elseya albagula, white-throated snapping turtle.http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/81648-conservation- advice.pdf.

Wager, R. and Jackson, P.D. (1993) The action plan for Australian freshwater fishes. Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra.

Wheeler, AP, Angermeier, PL and Rosenberger, AE (2005) Impacts of new highways and subsequent landscape urbanization on stream habitat and biota, Reviews in Fisheries Science, vol 13, pp 141-164.

Wood, PJ and Armitage, PD (1997). Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment, Environmental Management, vol 21, pp 203-217. Wormington, K. and Black, R. (2011) Freshwater aquatic biota assessment of Coondoo Creek on Tin Can Bay Road in the Region. A report for Department of Transport and Main Roads, Bundaberg, Queensland. Centre for Environmental Management

GHD | Report for TMR – Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement IMP, 4129972| 55

Appendices

Appendix A – Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement Ecological Assessment Department of Transport and Main Roads Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement Ecological Assessment

June 2016

Executive summary

The Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) is proposing to replace Coondoo Creek bridge on Tin Can Bay Road to provide a safer and more reliable crossing point for local traffic and emergency vehicles. Given the high quality habitat present and the potential for conservation significance species to occur within the project construction footprint, TMR engaged GHD to identify ecological values present and identifies additional legislative requirements relevant to the project. Desktop and field investigations were completed by GHD in February 2016. A summary of key findings and recommendations is provided as follows:

Terrestrial flora  A total of 57 Macrozamia pauli-guilielmi individuals [listed as endangered under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and the Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act)] were recorded within 100 m of the project construction footprint. Of those recorded, 11 individuals are likely to be directly impacted by the project. No other conservation significant flora species were recorded within the project study area.

Terrestrial fauna and associated habitat  Terrestrial habitat within the project construction footprint includes riparian vegetation dominated by Melaleuca quinquenervia and Lophostemon suaveolens; non-riparian Allocasuarina woodland and existing cleared road easement.

 The Allocasuarina habitat contains suitable foraging trees for the glossy black-cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami; listed as vulnerable under the NC Act). Evidence of the species, in the form of chewed seed cones, was observed within the project construction footprint and two (2) individuals were recorded within approximately 2 km of the project study area during field surveys.  Other conservation significant terrestrial fauna species confirmed present within the project study area include: one (1) migratory marine (EPBC Act) bird, Rufus fantail (Rhipidura rufifrons), and three (3) marine (EPBC Act) species: channel-billed cuckoo (Scythrops novaehollandiae), Horsfield's bronze cuckoo (Chalcites basalis) and shining bronze cuckoo (Chalcites lucidus).

 No evidence of the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus; listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act and NC Act) was observed within the project construction footprint during field surveys (i.e. scratches, pellets); however, the species has been previously recorded on two (2) occasions within 5 km of the project study area. The project construction footprint contains suitable habitat for the koala including three (3) species of food tree: Eucalyptus racemosa, Lophostemon confertus and Melaleuca quinquenervia. In accordance with the EPBC Act significant impact assessment guidelines for the koala (DotE 2014), the project construction footprint represents habitat critical to the survival of the species.

 The wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula; listed as vulnerable under the NC Act) was not recorded within the project study area during the field survey. The project construction footprint contains limited suitable habitat for this species and no suitable breeding habitat was present. The closest suitable habitat was a Melaleuca swamp located approximately 200 metres north and 30 m south of the project construction footprint.

GHD | Report for Department of Transport and Main Roads - Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement, 41/29634 | i  Approximately 14 high value habitat trees were observed within the project construction footprint. Such trees provide potential breeding habitat for glossy black-cockatoos as well as a range of other hollow dwelling fauna species.

Aquatic fauna and associated habitat  Coondoo Creek is a fifth order tributary that is identified by the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAF) as an important waterway for fish passage. Unlike much of the Mary River catchment, existing levels of siltation within Coondoo Creek are low and the riparian habitat remains largely intact, maintaining bank stability. These characteristics are critical in providing suitable habitat conditions (i.e. deep pools, shading, instream cover) for a number of conservation significant species. Aquatic habitat within the project study area is dominated by deep permanent pool habitat. Key habitat features such as instream woody debris, undercut banks, overhanging riparian vegetation and shading are present in a relatively high abundance.

 The project construction footprint supports habitat critical to the survival of the Mary River cod (Maccullochella mariensis; listed as endangered under the EPBC Act). Together with Tinana Creek, Coondoo Creek supports one (1) of only three (3) main subpopulations of the Mary River cod within the catchment. Only 25-30% of the Tinana/Coondoo Creek reach contains deep permanent pool habitat suitable for this species. The project construction footprint forms part of the suitable cod habitat within the Tinana/Coondoo Creek reach and the species is considered likely to occur.

 The white-throated snapping turtle (Elseya albagula: listed as critically endangered under the EPBC Act and endangered under the NC Act) was confirmed present within the project construction footprint with three (3) juvenile turtles captured during field surveys. The presence of juvenile turtles may suggest that Coondoo Creek is an important habitat area for facilitating juvenile recruitment into the breeding population and for the long-term maintenance of the species. As such, Coondoo Creek within the project construction footprint is considered habitat critical for the survival of the species.

 The Australian lungfish (Neoceratodus forsteri; listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act) was confirmed present within the project study area during field surveys with two (2) individuals observed approximately 350 m downstream of the project construction footprint.

 The oxleyan pygmy perch (Nannoperca oxleyana; listed as endangered under the EPBC Act and vulnerable under the NC Act) is considered likely to occur within the project study area; however the project construction footprint is not preferred habitat. This species is most likely to occur within the Melaleuca swamp habitat located adjacent to the project construction footprint. The project construction footprint is not considered to provide suitable breeding habitat for this species due to absence of dense aquatic macrophyte beds.

 The Mary River turtle (Elusor macrurus; list as endangered under the EPBC Act and NC Act) has not been previously recorded within Coondoo Creek; however, the deep permanent pool habitat within the project construction footprint provides suitable habitat conditions for this species and individuals are considered likely to occur.

 The platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus; listed as special least concern under the NC Act) has been previously recorded within 5 km of the project study area and aquatic habitat within the project construction footprint is considered suitable foraging habitat for the species. No burrows were observed within the project study area during field surveys and the fine sandy riverbed is not considered to provide optimal burrowing conditions.

ii | GHD | Report for Department of Transport and Main Roads - Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement, 41/29634  There was no suitable breeding habitat for conservation significant aquatic species (i.e. large woody debris, macrophytes, sandy banks) observed within the project construction footprint. Suitable breeding habitat in the form of large woody debris is present upstream and downstream of the project construction footprint.

Legislative requirements  The assessment of ecological values within the project construction footprint has identified that a number of conservation significant species listed under the EPBC Act and/or NC Act are known or likely to occur. The potential impacts of the project on these species should be considered and management actions developed to avoid or minimise the potential risks. A significant impact assessment should be conducted in accordance with the relevant DotE significant impact criteria for those species potentially impacted by the project. The results of the significant impact assessment will inform the project requirement for referral under the EPBC Act

 The project is not expected to trigger the requirement for a species management program (SMP) in accordance with the NC Act as no suitable breeding habitat for conservation significant species was observed within the project construction footprint during field surveys. It is; however, recommended that a fauna management plan be prepared in addition to the standard environmental management plans, to detail the specific proposed management actions for the protection of conservation significant species within the project study area.

 Queensland DAF has identified Coondoo Creek is an important waterway for fish passage and as such, the presence of an artificial barrier has the potential to have a major risk of impact on fish movement. The design of temporary and permanent structures for the project must therefore consider potential impacts on fish movement and permits may be required under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and Fisheries Act 1994.

GHD | Report for Department of Transport and Main Roads - Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement, 41/29634 | iii Table of contents

1. Introduction...... 1 1.1 Overview ...... 1 1.2 Project background...... 2 1.3 Project location and project study area...... 2 1.4 Purpose of this report...... 3 1.5 Limitations...... 5

2. Methodology...... 6 2.1 Desktop assessment...... 6 2.2 Field survey...... 6 2.3 Likelihood of occurrence assessment...... 11

3. Existing ecological values ...... 12 3.1 Mary River catchment...... 12 3.2 Terrestrial habitat ...... 12 3.3 Aquatic habitat ...... 16 3.4 Terrestrial flora...... 20 3.5 Terrestrial fauna...... 27 3.6 Aquatic fauna ...... 32

4. Conclusion and recommendations...... 40

5. References...... 43 Terrestrial fauna ...... 59 Aquatic fauna ...... 63 Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) ...... 65 Glossy black-cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami) ...... 65 Wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula)...... 66 Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus)...... 66 Australian lungfish (Neoceratodus forsteri)...... 67 Mary River cod (Maccullochella mariensis) ...... 68 Oxleyan pygmy perch (Nannoperca oxleyana)...... 69 Mary River turtle (Elusor macrurus) ...... 70 White-throated snapping turtle (Elseya albagula)...... 71

Table index

Table 3-1 Locations of high value habitat trees in the project construction footprint...... 16

Table 3-2 Conservation status and closest occurrence records...... 20

Table 3-3 Location and number of M. pauli-guilielmi individuals recorded within and immediately adjacent to the project construction footprint ...... 23

iv | GHD | Report for Department of Transport and Main Roads - Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement, 41/29634 Table 3-4 Conservation significant terrestrial fauna potentially occurring within the project study area ...... 27 Table 3-5 Terrestrial fauna species recorded within the project study area during field surveys...... 29

Table 3-6 Assessment of koala habitat...... 31 Table 3-7 Conservation significant aquatic fauna potentially occurring within the project study area ...... 32

Table 3-8 Aquatic fauna species recorded within the project study area during field surveys...... 34

Figure index

Figure 1-1 Project location, project construction footprint and project study area ...... 4 Figure 3-1 Terrestrial habitat types within the project study area ...... 14

Figure 3-2 Aquatic habitat types within the project study area ...... 18

Figure 3-3 Location and number of M. pauli-guilielmi individuals recorded within and immediately adjacent to the clearing impact area ...... 24

Figure 3-4 Location of Australian lungfish and white-throated snapping turtles within the project study area ...... 33

Appendices

Appendix A – Preliminary design drawings

Appendix B - Terrestrial habitat descriptions (GHD 2012)

Appendix C - Aquatic habitat descriptions

Appendix D - Desktop assessment result

Appendix E - Flora - likelihood of occurrence assessment

Appendix F - Fauna - likelihood of occurrence assessment Appendix G - Species profiles

GHD | Report for Department of Transport and Main Roads - Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement, 41/29634 | v

1. Introduction

1.1 Overview

The Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) proposes to replace the bridge on Tin Can Bay Road that crosses Coondoo Creek between Gympie and Tin Can Bay, Queensland (Figure 1-1). The existing bridge (Plate 1-1) is subject to frequent inundation during flooding events and TMR has identified that the bridge is in need of replacement to provide a safe and reliable crossing point for local traffic and emergency vehicles. TMR is proposing to construct a new concrete bridge, located approximately 20 metres (m) to the west (downstream) of the existing structure. The project will involve the realignment of the road approaches on both the south and north of the bridge for distances of 600 m and 420 m, respectively. Vehicular access during the construction period will occur via the existing bridge with a side track constructed on the south- east of the existing formation. For the purpose of this assessment, the project construction footprint includes all areas likely to be disturbed during construction works, including the existing and new road alignments and batters, the new bridge alignment, the side track alignment and the new overhead powerline easement. The extent of the project construction footprint is shown in Figure 1-1. As a conservative estimate, the project construction footprint will be a maximum of 5.13 hectares (ha) in total area and will occur over a maximum 50 m length of the creek.

The bridge replacement project will include works within the bed and banks of Coondoo Creek and the riparian and terrestrial vegetation adjacent. TMR engaged GHD’s services to complete an assessment of the ecological values of this environment. The assessment included a desktop assessment of existing information and a two-day (2) field survey. Survey techniques included targeted surveys for conservation significant terrestrial flora, terrestrial fauna and aquatic fauna species. This report provides a summary of assessment results and identifies additional legislative requirements relevant to the project.

Plate 1-1 Existing wooden bridge (left) and proposed footprint for the new concrete bridge (right)

GHD | Report for Department of Transport and Main Roads - Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement, 41/29634 | 1 1.2 Project background

TMR proposes to replace the bridge on Tin Can Bay Road with a concrete bridge located approximately 20 m downstream of the existing wooden bridge (Figure 1-1, Plate 1-1). The proposed design consists of a five (5) span bridge, with a total bridge span of approximately 100 m. This design requires three (3) sets of piers, two (2) of which are located within the bed of Coondoo Creek and the other on the north-west bank. The road approaches will be realigned on both the south and north of the bridge for distances of 600 m and 420 m, respectively. Batters will be approximately 4.5 m higher than the existing road. Access to existing forestry tracks will be updated to align with the new abutments. Preliminary construction drawings are provided in Appendix A.

Geotechnical investigation of the project construction footprint is proposed to occur in June 2016 and will require core drilling of bore holes at the proposed location of each of the six (6) piers and a number of other sites within the proposed locations of abutments and approaches. Access to Coondoo Creek will be required for drilling and would generally involve vegetation clearing of an access track and construction of a platform within the creek. To protect the existing ecological values within Coondoo Creek, TMR proposes to investigate alternative methods to avoid direct disturbance to the creek from a platform. These methods may include the use of alternative structures to support drilling machinery or postponing geotechnical investigation of the piers within the creek until immediately prior to construction when the new bridge foundations can be used as an access point for drilling. These methods will also minimise vegetation clearing required for pre-construction access to the creek.

The results of the geotechnical investigations will inform detailed design of the project and construction methodology. To protect the existing ecological values within Coondoo Creek, TMR proposes to avoid direct disturbance to the creek during construction activities. In general, the construction process is likely to include the following activities:

 Vegetation clearing and earthworks for construction of abutments on the eastern and western banks;

 Installation of three (3) sets of piled piers into the river bed and banks;

 Attached bridge decking;  Restore the river bed and banks to pre works profile; and

 Removal of the old bridge.

Vehicular access during the construction period will occur via the existing bridge with a side track constructed to the south-east.

1.3 Project location and project study area

The project is located at Coondoo Creek on Tin Can Bay Road (Chainage 33.52 km – 34.57 km) between Gympie and Tin Can Bay, Queensland (Figure 1-1). For the purpose of this assessment, the project construction footprint is defined as the proposed development footprint of the new bridge, approaches, sidetrack and powerline easement (area over which temporary direct impacts are expected). As a conservative estimate, the project construction footprint will be a maximum of 5.13 ha in total area and will occur over a maximum 50 m length of the river (Figure 1-1).

The project study area (Figure 1-1) comprised four (4) survey extents which differed based on the nature of the specific survey component. A description of survey components and respective study areas is provided as follows:

2 | GHD | Report for Department of Transport and Main Roads - Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement, 41/29634  The conservation significant flora component of the assessment encompassed (as a minimum) the entire project construction footprint plus an additional buffer of approximately 100 m to the west of the project construction footprint (Figure 1-1). This area (project construction footprint plus an additional 100 m buffer) is termed the ‘clearing impact area’, in accordance with the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) Flora Survey Guidelines – Protected Plants.  The terrestrial fauna component of the assessment encompassed the entire project construction footprint plus approximately 400 m downstream and 200 m upstream of the existing Coondoo bridge on both the northern and southern banks (Figure 1-1).  The aquatic component of the assessment included the area extending from 400 m downstream of the project construction footprint to 200 m upstream of the project construction footprint (Figure 1-1).  The terrestrial and aquatic animal breeding places survey was restricted to the project construction footprint (Figure 1-1).

1.4 Purpose of this report

This Ecological Assessment Report (the report) details the findings of the desktop assessment and field surveys undertaken within the project study area. The report includes:  Details of project background;

 Description of assessment methodology;

 Summary of existing ecological values including results of desktop assessment and field surveys and likelihood of occurrence for conservation significant species; and

 Recommendations/identification of additional legislative requirements.

The purpose of the report is to detail the environmental values of the study area and identify the environmental approvals, referrals and/or permits that may be required for the project.

GHD | Report for Department of Transport and Main Roads - Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement, 41/29634 | 3 483,250 483,400 483,550 483,700 483,850 484,000 484,150 484,300 484,450 484,600 7,125,600 7,125,600

NEERDIE STATE FOREST 2

OAD R Y Main view A NEERDIE STATE FOREST 1 B N A C IN T

7,125,450 TOOLARA STATE FOREST 7,125,450

GREAT SANDY NATIONAL PARK 1:150,000 7,125,300 7,125,300

7,125,150 Coondoo Creek 7,125,150 7,125,000 7,125,000 7,124,850 7,124,850

Based on or contains data provided by the State of QLD (DNRM) 2016. In consideration of the State permitting use of this data you acknowledge and agree that the State gives no warranty in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability, completeness, currency or suitability) and accepts no liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs (including consequential damage) relating to any use of the data. Data must not be used for marketing or be used in breach of the privacy laws.

Imagery © Google Earth Pro (date extracted extracted 27/04/2016) and third party suppliers (eg. © Digital Globe 2016) 7,124,700 7,124,700

483,250 483,400 483,550 483,700 483,850 484,000 484,150 484,300 484,450 484,600

Job Number 41-29634 1:4,000 @ A3 LEGEND Department of Transport and Main Roads Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement Revision A 0 15 30 60 90 120 150 Clearing impact area (construction footprint Waterway barrier works - Risk of impact Proposed Alignment Cadastral Boundary plus 100 m buffer, as per DEHP guidelines) Date 30 Jun 2016 1 - Low Metres State-controlled Road National Park Project construction footprint Map Projection: UniversalTransverse Mercator 4 - Major Project location, project construction Waterways State Forest Horizontal Datum: GDA 1994 o Project study area Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56 footprint and project study area Figure 1-1

N:\AU\Bundaberg\Projects\41\29634\GIS\Maps\MXD\41_29634_001_rev_a.mxd 145 Ann Street Brisbane QLD 4000 Australia T 61 7 3316 3000 F 61 7 3316 3333 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com © 2016. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and TMR, DNRM and Google) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data source: DAF: WWBW(2013); DNRM: Waterways (2010), Cadastral Boundary (2013), Protcted Areas (2014). TMR: State-controlled Roads (2013), Chainage (2013). GHD: Protected Plants (2016), Proposed Alignment (2016), Clearing Impact Area (2016), Construction Footprint (2016). Google Earth: Aerial Imagery (date extracted: 29/04/2016). Created by:mstanley 1.5 Limitations

This report has been prepared by GHD for TMR and may only be used and relied on by TMR for the purpose agreed between GHD and the TMR as set out in this report.

GHD otherwise disclaims responsibility to any person other than TMR arising in connection with this report. GHD also excludes implied warranties and conditions, to the extent legally permissible. The services undertaken by GHD in connection with preparing this report were limited to those specifically detailed in the report and are subject to the scope limitations set out in the report. The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on conditions encountered and information reviewed at the date of preparation of the report. GHD has no responsibility or obligation to update this report to account for events or changes occurring subsequent to the date that the report was prepared. The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on assumptions made by GHD described in this report. GHD disclaims liability arising from any of the assumptions being incorrect. GHD has prepared this report on the basis of information provided by TMR and others who provided information to GHD (including Government authorities)], which GHD has not independently verified or checked beyond the agreed scope of work. GHD does not accept liability in connection with such unverified information, including errors and omissions in the report which were caused by errors or omissions in that information.

The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on information obtained from, and testing undertaken at or in connection with, specific sample points. Site conditions at other parts of the site may be different from the site conditions found at the specific sample points. Investigations undertaken in respect of this report are constrained by the particular site conditions, such as the location of buildings, services and vegetation. As a result, not all relevant site features and conditions may have been identified in this report. Site conditions (including the presence of hazardous substances and/or site contamination) may change after the date of this Report. GHD does not accept responsibility arising from, or in connection with, any change to the site conditions. GHD is also not responsible for updating this report if the site conditions change.

GHD | Report for Department of Transport and Main Roads - Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement, 41/29634 | 5 2. Methodology

The ecological values of the environment within the project study area were assessed based on a desktop assessment and field survey.

2.1 Desktop assessment

In order to develop an understanding of the existing environment, including the potential for species of conservation significance to be present within the project study area, background information was reviewed from the following sources:

 Department of the Environment (DotE) Protected Matters Search Tool database, which lists matters of national environmental significance (MNES) within proximity to the project based on bioclimatic information;

 Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation (DSITI) Wildlife Online database which lists previously recorded species including those listed as endangered, vulnerable or near threatened (EVNT) under the Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act) and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act);  Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) Regulated Vegetation Management Mapping Version 8.0, which depicts mapped remnant vegetation communities and areas mapped as essential habitat;

 Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAF) Queensland Waterways for Waterway Barrier Works spatial data layer, to identify the risk of impact from waterway barrier works on fish movement and fish communities;

 Australia’s Virtual Herbarium to search for specimen records of target species to gain an understanding of the location and collection date of any threatened flora records in proximity to the project study area;

 Publically available scientific reports on the Mary River catchment and relevant species; and

 Existing technical reports prepared for the project including:

– Freshwater Aquatic Biota Assessment of Coondoo Creek on Tin Can Bay Road in the (Wormington and Black 2011); – Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement Job Number 261-41a-800 Ecological Study (GHD 2012); and – Report for Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement Environmental Assessment (GHD 2009).

2.2 Field survey

Field surveys were conducted to identify the existing ecological values of the project study area and to supplement and ground truth the information acquired from the desktop assessment (including verification of the likelihood of occurrence of EPBC Act and NC Act listed species). Field surveys were undertaken within the project study area on the 11 and 12 February 2016.

Weather conditions during the field surveys were warm with light showers. Maximum temperature ranged from 27.6 °C to 28.2 °C. A total of 3.2 millimetres (mm) of rain was recorded during the survey event with 61.5 mm of rain recorded to date for the month of February. Rainfall during the preceding three (3) months (November-January) totalled

6 | GHD | Report for Department of Transport and Main Roads - Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement, 41/29634 370.8 mm, only slightly below the long term average for this period (388.9 mm). All weather data was sourced from the nearest Australian Bureau of Meteorology weather station – Rainbow Beach (Station ID 040856).

Surveys were conducted in accordance with the Queensland Animal Care and Protection Act 2001, GHD Scientific Users Registration Certificate (Registration Number 132), GHD Scientific Purposes Permits (permit number WISP11392912 and WISP15723315) and Permit to Collect under the Forestry Act 1959 (TWB/02/2016). Survey methodology was approved by the accredited GHD Animal Ethics Committee.

2.2.1 Habitat assessment

Habitat assessments were undertaken specifically within the aquatic environment to build on existing terrestrial habitat descriptions completed by GHD in 2012. Aquatic habitat assessments were undertaken within, upstream and downstream of the project construction footprint to characterise the aquatic environment with respect to ecological values for aquatic flora and fauna. Assessments were conducted with regards to the Australian River Assessment System (AusRivAS) proforma. Assessments were conducted over a 100 m reach and characterised the habitat in terms of habitat diversity and extent, suitability for aquatic fauna groups, sensitivity to change, existing disturbances/modifications or barriers, riparian condition and flow characteristics. Key features noted included:  Substrate: in terms of per cent representation by bedrock, boulder (>256 millimetres (mm)), cobble (64-256 mm), pebble (4-64 mm), gravel (2-4 mm), sand (0.05-2 mm) and silt/clay (<0.05 mm) classifications;  Snags and woody debris: in terms of representation of detritus (leaves, twigs), sticks (<2 centimetre (cm) diameter), branches (<15 cm diameter) and logs (>15 cm diameter) classifications. These are estimated in terms of cover within the reach as either none, little (1-10 per cent), some (10-50 per cent), moderate (50-75 per cent) or extensive (>75 per cent);

 Habitat attributes: note is taken for the presence of periphyton, moss, filamentous algae, macrophytes, bank overhang vegetation, trailing bank vegetation, blanketing silt and substrate anoxia. The same ‘none’ to ‘extensive’ categories are used as for snags and woody debris;  Sediment deposits: refers to the presence of instream deposits of either sand or silt (or none);

 Odour: the presence of water or substrate odour is noted; and  Variety of habitat: the presence of shallow, deep, pool, run, riffle, undercut bank, woody debris and macrophytes habitats is noted.

In addition to the key features listed, observations relating to intactness and size of the riparian zone, shading, disturbances and water quality were considered.

GHD | Report for Department of Transport and Main Roads - Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement, 41/29634 | 7 2.2.2 Terrestrial flora

Targeted surveys were undertaken for the following conservation significant flora species considered known or likely to occur within the project study area based on results of the desktop assessment:

 Macrozamia pauli-guilielmi;

 Boronia rivularis;  Acacia attenuata; and

 Pterostylis chaetophora. The survey was conducted in a manner consistent with the timed meander method that is described in the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) Flora Survey Guidelines – Protected Plants (‘the Guidelines’). In brief, the timed meander method involves the following steps: 1. Select a starting point within the particular habitat of interest and record the time;

2. Record the identities of the protected plant species observed, and collect specimens for any unknown species; 3. Traverse the particular habitat in a random manner so as to maximise the coverage of habitat and the encounter rate of different species;

4. Record a list of flora species encountered and note the time every two (2) to five (5) minutes. If the survey needs to be interrupted, do not include this time in the results; and

5. Continue searching until no new species have been recorded for 30 minutes or when the entire area of habitat type is surveyed, whichever happens sooner. The flora survey encompassed the entire project study area and representative meanders across all habitat types present within the project study area were undertaken.

The seasonality of the survey was considered suitable for the detection and identification of three (3) of the four (4) target species, namely M. pauli-guilielmi, B. rivularis and A. attenuata. All three (3) species are long-lived perennials that are readily identified throughout the year. The survey timing was considered unsuitable for the detection of the fourth (4th) target species, P. chaetophora, and a follow-up survey should be undertaken over the spring period to target this taxon.

The targeted survey for terrestrial flora species builds on the survey conducted within the project study area by GHD in 2012.

2.2.3 Terrestrial fauna

Targeted surveys were undertaken for the following conservation significant species considered known or likely to occur within the project study area based on results of the desktop assessment:

 Wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula);  Cooloola sedgefrog (Litoria cooloolensis);

 Wallum rocketfrog (Litoria freycineti);

 Giant barred frog (Mixophyes iteratus);  Glossy black-cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami);

 Black-breasted button-quail (Turnix melanogaster);

8 | GHD | Report for Department of Transport and Main Roads - Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement, 41/29634  Coxen’s fig parrot (Cyclopsitta diophthalma coxeni);

 Red goshawk (Erythrotriorchis radiatus);

 Australian painted snipe (Rostratula australis);  Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus);

 Grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus); and

 Large-eared pied bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri). Survey methodology was developed with regard to the Commonwealth and State guidelines applicable to the relevant species and involved:

 Amphibian survey - spotlighting was undertaken within suitable habitat areas and mapped essential habitat during the evening to identify the presence or absence of conservation significant frog species. Call-playback was also conducted during the survey and involved broadcasting the calls of the targeted species to encourage a response, indicating species presence;

 Bird survey - area searches (maximum of 30 search minutes) were conducted within each terrestrial habitat type within the project study area. Bird species were identified visually or from calls. Active searches for black-breasted button-quail platelets were conducted within suitable habitats;

 Koala survey – the spot assessment technique (SAT) was used to assess koala activity within the project study area. A systematic search for koala faecal pellets was undertaken around known foraging tree species. A minimum of 30 of the closest trees were assessed with a maximum of two (2) minutes search conducted under each tree;  Bat/flying fox habitat search –the project study area was assessed for foraging and roosting habitat suitability for the grey-headed flying fox and large-eared pied bat; and

 Opportunistic observations of terrestrial fauna species were also undertaken within the project study area during the field survey event.

The target surveys for terrestrial fauna species builds on the active searches conducted within the project study area by GHD in 2012.

2.2.4 Aquatic fauna

Targeted surveys were undertaken for the following conservation significant species considered known or likely to occur within the project study area based on results of the desktop assessment:

 Mary River cod (Maccullochella mariensis);

 Australian lungfish (Neoceratodus forsteri);  Oxleyan pygmy perch (Nannoperca oxleyana);

 Mary River turtle (Elusor macrurus);

 White-throated snapping turtle (Elseya albagula); and  Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus).

GHD | Report for Department of Transport and Main Roads - Coondoo Creek Bridge Replacement, 41/29634 | 9