Travesn to Crossing Dam Environmental Impact Statement I mplementation Framework

S eptember 2009 FINAL

Traveston Crossing Dam

Implementation Framework

Traveston Crossing Dam – Implementation Framework

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Aim of Implementation Framework 3 1.3 Governance Model 4 2 KEY OUTCOME AREAS 5 2.1 Habitat rehabilitation and restoration 5 2.1.1 On-ground and in-stream works 6 2.1.2 Rationale for using local groups 7 2.1.3 Freshwater Species Conservation Centre 8 2.2 Species mitigation measures 9 2.3 Flow management 9 2.4 Carbon offsets 11 2.4.1 Programs 11 2.4.2 Carbon Offset Research 11 2.5 Vegetation offsets 11 2.6 Contaminated land 11 2.7 Managing activities on QWI land 12 2.8 Environmental management during construction 13 2.9 Operational issues 13 2.10 Support for local businesses 14 2.11 Facilitating long-term sustainable local enterprises 15 2.11.1 Programs 15 2.11.2 Research 15 2.12 Promoting the long-term sustainability of rural industries 15 2.13 Maximising tourism opportunities 16 2.14 Maintaining and enhancing community facilities in the Mary Valley 16 2.15 Cultural heritage 17 2.15.1 Indigenous cultural heritage 17 2.15.2 Non-indigenous cultural heritage 17 3 GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS 18 3.1 Implementation process 18 3.2 Interface Groups 18 3.3 Implementation phases 19 4 REFERENCES 21 APPENDIX A Summary of full implementation program A-1 APPENDIX B Letters of commitment – Greening Australia & QWaLC B-1 APPENDIX C Summary of construction EMP commitments C-1 APPENDIX D Habitat Restoration Plan D-1

Traveston Crossing Dam – Implementation Framework Page i

APPENDIX E FSCC Overview E-1 APPENDIX F Letters of Endorsement F-1 APPENDIX G Curriculum Vitae G-1

Traveston Crossing Dam – Implementation Framework Page ii

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background The Traveston Crossing Dam Project (Project) is a critical component of the water strategy for South East Queensland (SEQ). The Project will provide sufficient reliable supply of water for 800,000 people per day. The Project involves the construction and operation of a new dam and associated infrastructure on the Mary River in SEQ, delivering an additional 70,000 ML/a of high priority water to SEQ.

Queensland Water Infrastructure Pty Ltd (QWI) was appointed by the Queensland Government in 2006 to design, construct and gain all necessary approvals for the Project. This task was further mandated through the Water Amendment Regulation (No. 6) 2006 under the Water Act 2000.

The Project has been declared a significant project by the Queensland Coordinator-General (CG) and requires environmental assessment under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (Qld) (SDPWO Act), and assessment and approval under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act).

QWI has progressed the Project through a rigorous State and Federal Government environmental assessment process. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (SKM, 2007) was prepared1 and subsequently released for public notification from 18 October 2007 to 14 January 2008. Submissions in response to the EIS were received by the CG from local councils, State and Federal Government agencies, and the community. Subsequently, a Supplementary Report (SKM, 2008) was prepared to provide clarification of specific issues raised in submissions and recommendations to the CG.

Since the lodgement of the Supplementary Report with the CG in August 2008, further information requests have been received from referral agencies, including State Government agencies and the Commonwealth Government Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA).

The CG has requested the identification of specific areas that present opportunities for protection and recovery of native species given existing threatening processes within the highly-disturbed catchment and the additional potential impacts associated with the Project. The specific information requested by the CG includes:

• Performance criteria options; • Stream and adjacent riparian habitat locations to be rehabilitated and protected; • Quantified land area and locations to be incorporated in new refuge reserves; • Management measures to be applied to the relevant land and watercourses; • Timeframes for development of habitat; • Likely impact of rehabilitation and offset measures proposed including on matters of National Environmental Significance; and • Proposed land use controls.

The DEWHA also commissioned a review of the EIS in relation to the hydrological modelling methods and approach, and reviews of both the EIS and Supplementary Report in relation to

1 In accordance with the Final Terms of Reference (TOR) issued by the Queensland Coordinator-General under the SDPWO Act and the EPBC Act.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Implementation Framework Page 1

'matters of National Environmental Significance' (NES) with a particular focus on four species, namely:

• Mary River Turtle (Elusor macrurus); • Mary River Cod (Maccullochella peelii mariensis); • Queensland Lungfish (Neoceratodus forsteri); and • Giant Barred Frog (Mixophyes iteratus).

The review comprised four reports (Reviewer Reports) which were publicly released by DEWHA on 25 November 2008, and are included in the appendices section of the Response to Reviewer Reports.

This document, a Habitat Restoration Plan, the Response to Reviewer Reports and associated appendices have been prepared by QWI in response to the CG’s request for further information and the four Reviewer Reports.

To achieve a higher level of review in preparing the Response to Reviewer Reports and provide a clearer and more succinct approach to the presentation of key information related to the Project, QWI sought the assistance of three leading scientists (the Scientific Advisers) with extensive knowledge of the four species of NES, listed below.

Personnel University / Association Expertise Emeritus Professor University of Queensland Queensland Lungfish, Mary River Cod Gordon Grigg Professor Craig Franklin University of Queensland Mary River Turtle

Associate Professor Griffith University Giant Barred Frog Jean-Marc Hero

In addition to the Scientific Advisers listed above, Dr. Peter Jackson undertook a detailed review of the Mary River Cod Research and Recovery Plan (Environment Australia, 2000) of which he was a co-author. Dr Jackson has over 35 years of experience as a fish ecologist and is the chairman of the Mary River Cod Recovery Team. Dr. Jackson’s review significantly informed the development of the Proponent’s mitigation measures and addressed other key issues such as research requirements, relating to the Mary River Cod.

The aim of their scientific advice has been to achieve a thorough and informed review and evaluation of the comprehensive set of proposed mitigation measures to ensure the long term viability of each of the four NES species of particular interest.

To lend further weight to the level of scientific review, QWI asked the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) to conduct an independent, expert peer review of the Response to Reviewer Reports. The Expert Peer Review Panel (see membership below) focused on the approach taken to the proposed mitigation measures, in particular the role and functioning of the Freshwater Species Conservation Centre and Habitat Restoration Plan (see Section 2.1 of this Implementation Framework for further explanation in this latter regard). Letters of endorsement for the scientific advisers and the CSIRO have been provided in Appendix F of this Implementation Framework.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Implementation Framework Page 2

Personnel Affiliations Title Dr Tom Hatton CSIRO Director, Water for a Healthy Country Flagship Scott Keyworth CSIRO Project Director David Ellis CSIRO Business Manager for CSIRO Land and Water Professor Arthur Georges CSIRO – University of Canberra Professor in Applied Ecology Dr Craig Miller CSIRO Senior Research Scientist - CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems Dr Fredrieke Kroon CSIRO Senior Research Scientist - CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems Frank Lemckert CSIRO – NSW DPI Senior Research Scientist

1.2 Aim of Implementation Framework QWI has adopted a holistic approach to mitigating and managing potential impacts, as well as leveraging environmental improvement opportunities of the Project. The approach aligns with sustainability principles developed by CSIRO specifically for the Project. A significant number of commitments have been made (refer to Table 30-5 of the Supplementary Report, 2008) that cover direct impacts of construction and operation of the Project as well as broader environmental, social, cultural and economic impacts to the Mary Valley and its community. QWI recognises that further clarity is required regarding these commitments, in particular how they will actually be honoured, by whom and when. This Implementation Framework has therefore been prepared to demonstrate QWI’s program for meeting its environmental, cultural and socio-economic commitments. This Framework also provides overarching context for the implementation programs proposed by QWI in response to the CG’s request for further information and the DEWHA Reviewer Reports.

This Implementation Framework presents:

• An overview of “key outcome areas” which have been developed via grouping of individual commitments into logical themes; • An outline of the programs planned or already in place to achieve specific outcomes; • The rationale for the chosen implementation mechanisms; • Proposed governance arrangements including the organisations to be involved in implementation; and • Timeframes for putting the arrangements in place.

QWI has a strong commitment to supporting and contributing to a vibrant and sustainable Mary Valley community in light of the many changes the Project would bring. Sustainability principles developed by CSIRO are guiding QWI’s actions, and QWI will ultimately be judged on its adherence to those principles. That is why a large number of implementation programs are being put in place to ensure the Project promotes sustainable communities and local enterprises through opportunities generated by the Project, and conserves and restores riverine communities that support an ecologically sustainable Mary River catchment.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Implementation Framework Page 3

1.3 Governance Model The Implementation Framework provides the overarching context for the implementation of the environmental, cultural and socio-economic commitments made by QWI. The governance process for the implementation of mitigation, commitments and undertakings made as part of the Project is outlined below (Figure 1-1). These include the Habitat Restoration Plan (HRP); Water Resource Planning process (WRP); Freshwater Species Conservation Centre (FSCC); Construction EMP (CEMP) and other commitments. The HRP and FSCC are attached as Appendix D and Appendix E, to this Implementation framework.

Figure 1-1 Implementation Framework – Governance Model

Traveston Crossing Dam – Implementation Framework Page 4

2 KEY OUTCOME AREAS

QWI commitments have been grouped into the following key outcome areas:

1. Rehabilitation of the Mary River and tributaries to restore functioning habitats for species of National Environmental Significance; 2. Direct actions to mitigate the impact of the Project on the environment with particular regard to species of National Environmental Significance; 3. Flow management; 4. Carbon offsets; 5. Vegetation offsets; 6. Contaminated land; 7. Managing activities on QWI owned land; 8. Environmental management during construction; 9. Operational issues; 10. Support for local businesses; 11. Facilitating long-term sustainable local enterprises; 12. Promoting the long-term sustainability of rural industries; 13. Maximising tourism opportunities; 14. Maintaining and enhancing community facilities in the Mary Valley; and 15. Cultural heritage (indigenous and non-indigenous).

A concise overview of these outcome areas together with proposed mitigation measures, implementation programs, responsible parties and associated research requirements is provided in tabularised format in Appendix A of this Framework.

As discussed above, Sustainability Principles, namely Sustainable Ecological Catchments, Sustainable Local Enterprises and Sustainable Communities, have been developed by CSIRO and are guiding QWI’s actions. The first 9 key outcome areas are consistent with Sustainable Ecological Catchments; key outcome areas 10 to 13 are consistent with Sustainable Local Enterprises; and key outcome areas 14 and 15 aim to facilitate Sustainable Communities. Some of the 15 key outcome areas in the Appendix A table have been assigned a particular colour theme with further subdivision into different shades to illustrate various implementation programs associated with the Mary River Cod, Mary River Turtle, Queensland Lungfish, and Giant Barred Frog. Species-specific commitment tables that appear in Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Response to Reviewer Reports document utilise the same suite of colours so it can be seen how those commitments fit within the broader implementation programs of this Implementation Framework.

More detailed information including the rationale for certain implementation programs is provided below.

2.1 Habitat rehabilitation and restoration Commitment to habitat rehabilitation and restoration encompasses the suite of actions required to improve catchment condition, and is specifically aimed at assisting the four particular species of National Environmental Significance under the EPBC Act. Commitment to in-storage works for aquatic species and engineering solutions to facilitate fish and turtle movements are addressed in section 2.2 below. Mitigation of impacts on flora and fauna associated with on-site construction of the Project will be the responsibility of the construction contractor and are covered by various construction environmental management plans (see section 2.8).

Traveston Crossing Dam – Implementation Framework Page 5

2.1.1 On-ground and in-stream works A Habitat Restoration Plan (HRP) (see Appendix D) has been prepared to direct QWI’s actions for how measurable habitat improvements can be achieved prior to dam construction, during construction and beyond.

The HRP presents the intended approach to habitat rehabilitation and restoration activities (commencing immediately upon Project approval) and establishes a framework for monitoring restoration works over the longer term. The HRP is complementary to the large number of commitments proposed in the EIS and Supplementary Report which will also aid the recovery of the target species, such as optimising flow regimes, developing captive husbandry techniques or implementing research programs. The outcomes of actions proposed in the HRP will provide a sound basis for long-term habitat restoration across the Mary River catchment. These activities associated with the Project therefore create a unique opportunity to make a significant contribution to the improvement of catchment and in-stream health.

In order to address the specific issues raised by the CG, the HRP provides:

• An overview of the current status of each of the four target species and associated habitat; • Identification of areas of habitat modified or impacted by the Project; • Identification of land available for rehabilitation; • A strategy for restoring riparian vegetation; • A strategy for restoring in-stream habitat; • A monitoring methodology for revegetation sites and in-stream habitat restoration works; and • Performance indicators and targets that will be used to demonstrate nett conservation benefit.

In order to maximise the efficiency of habitat restoration and land management works, QWI will consult with Roger Stone, Professor of Climatology and Water Science at the University of Southern Queensland, with respect to optimal planting times, land remediation works, and other weather-dependent activities. QWI has previously worked with Professor Stone on the Wyaralong Dam project, and utilises his expertise on a range of Project issues.

On-ground rehabilitation works will be implemented in conjunction with Greening Australia and Queensland Water and Land Carers Inc., along with local Landcare and Catchment Care groups. The State Government’s “Green Army” program will also be a potential source for personnel to undertake revegetation and rehabilitation works.

QWI has entered into Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with Greening Australia, and Queensland Water and Land Carers Inc. (QWaLC). QWI has an existing operational relationship with both groups implementing environmental rehabilitation activities on the Wyaralong Dam Project, west of Beaudesert. Furthermore, Greening Australia has stated:

“....GA understand QWI’s proposed Habitat Restoration program for the Traveston Crossing Dam Project and have identified a number of activities where GA would be able to provide immediate on-ground resources to commence restoration activities and associated training programs.” (Greening Australia, 2009)

This letter of commitment is attached in Appendix B of this Implementation Framework.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Implementation Framework Page 6

QWI will engage individual Natural Resource Management (NRM) groups, coordinated by QWaLC where appropriate, to undertake specific works at different locations in the catchment. For example, a number of groups have already expressed their interest in seed collection and propagation of local tree species for revegetation programs (see copy of letter from QWaLC in Appendix B). The Burnett Mary Regional Group for Natural Resource Management (BMRG), under a negotiated agreement with QWI, will also undertake a range of catchment management activities. This $3.575 million program of activities will include actions to facilitate water quality and biodiversity conservation outcomes.

A component of the “Food and Fibre Futures” Program, an agricultural development partnership negotiated between the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (now part of Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI)) and QWI, involves projects to manage riparian zone land and aquatic and terrestrial weeds. This $2.75 million program includes an allocation of funds for riparian zone management which includes an incentive scheme fund for landholders to improve their sustainable farming practices, and to actively exclude stock and revegetate riparian land. This program will also make available funds for a water weed management plan and partnerships with NRM groups and Biosecurity Queensland for rehabilitation schemes.

A number of catchment management issues in the Mary River catchment align with national NRM priorities in the Commonwealth Government’s “Caring for our Country” (CfoC) initiative. Under the initiative, funding will be approved for projects which satisfy the Commonwealth Government’s criteria outlined in their annual CfoC business plan (DEWHA & DAFF 2008). Real opportunities have been identified for QWI to partner with NRM groups, government agencies, research and private sector organisations to develop projects that achieve multiple outcomes at the catchment and landscape scale. Current national NRM priorities that apply to the Mary River catchment include increasing native habitat, reducing the impact of weeds, protecting Ramsar wetlands, improving land management practices (in particular hillslope erosion), and community engagement and participation. QWI will support funding applications for catchment improvement works in the Mary Valley that are consistent with national NRM priorities.

2.1.2 Rationale for using local groups A large body of experience and local knowledge exists within local groups which have implemented regional natural resource management (NRM) programs and specific local rehabilitation works over many years.

Greening Australia, BMRG and QWaLC are capable of facilitating a wide range of rehabilitation and general catchment management initiatives. They have a strong track record in supporting and promoting sustainable farming practices, water quality, biodiversity conservation, weed management (both terrestrial and aquatic) and capacity building.

The peak body for NRM volunteers, QWaLC, is being engaged to coordinate on-ground effort of Landcare and Catchment Care groups as well as individuals because of their extensive networks within the NRM sector. Their role as the State’s NRM volunteer peak body includes representation, advocacy, promotion, networking and insurance administration. QWaLC's board includes representatives from each of Queensland's regions, and their membership consists of over 300 groups and 20,000 individuals. Because of their function as an umbrella organisation, they are ideally placed to coordinate on-ground personnel and identify skills from other areas if needed. The BMRG has recently partnered with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (now incorporated into the Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management) to develop the “Burnett Mary ‘Back on Track’ Biodiversity Action Plan” which aims to guide the conservation and recovery of priority species in the region (EPA 2009). The Project is a vehicle for boosting resources and capacity to undertake many of the identified actions. In turn, the

Traveston Crossing Dam – Implementation Framework Page 7

Biodiversity Action Plan provides a framework with appropriate linkages to fast-track parallel actions for the dam.

While the BMRG has been the regional body overseeing NRM projects for a number of years, many on-ground actions have been undertaken by smaller NRM groups under BMRG’s aegis or in their own right. The BMRG recognised the commitment and capacity of groups in the Mary River catchment in the following quote from their regional NRM Plan (BMRG 2005, p58).

“The Mary Basin is fortunate to have strong and highly motivated groups of award winning community based organisations with a focus on NRM issues (eg Barung and Tiaro Landcare, Mary River CCC, Lake MacDonald CCG).”

Tiaro & District Landcare Group have been successful in a range of management actions in relation to the protection of the Mary River Turtle, including fencing nesting bank sites and control of grazing and feral animals to reduce the loss of turtle eggs. QWI, through the MOU arrangements with QWaLC, will support nest protection and habitat restoration activities.

Another example of a successful program in recent years has been “Rivercare” grants which have delivered on-ground rehabilitation and management actions to 150 properties from the headwaters of the Mary River to Tinana Creek (BMRG 2008). A rehabilitation plan for the Mary River and tributaries was prepared in 2001 (MRCCC, 2001); this has been a useful input to identifying rehabilitation requirements at specific sites.

In summary, the use of local groups will enable QWI to benefit from local knowledge and expertise in habitat rehabilitation and restoration. This approach will also assist QWI to build skills via training local workers, and utilise local providers for materials and equipment.

2.1.3 Freshwater Species Conservation Centre Future research is vitally important to improve knowledge about the biology of the four NES species and will provide the necessary input to enhance ongoing habitat restoration and species- specific mitigation measures. This research will be delivered through the Freshwater Species Conservation Centre (FSCC) which is a ten year funded commitment by the Queensland Government through QWI. The FSCC will be an active research initiative with a facility built on-site and operated by the University of Queensland. An overview of the FSCC is provided in Appendix E.

The FSCC will run two streams of research, Applied Research and Academic Research.

The first stream, Applied Research (i.e. under contract to QWI), will focus on specific research outcomes in connection with the Project that assist with the direct management of the Mary River Turtle, Mary River Cod, Queensland Lungfish and Giant Barred Frog. This research will complement and inform the HRP activities and species-specific mitigation measures. It will also provide scientific input for the determination of environmental flows by a special Scientific Advisory Panel, which will be used in the development of the final operational release strategy. Overall, this knowledge will not only contribute to the success of mitigation measures and offsets within the Mary River catchment, but will also provide key information for future conservation management efforts elsewhere throughout the species' distribution range.

The second stream, Academic Research, will enhance the overall knowledge of the biology and ecology of the four key NES species and others in the region. Given the scientific expertise that will be available through the FSCC, it is also anticipated that the FSCC will become a significant national and international research centre, a venue for post-graduate research and training and, in

Traveston Crossing Dam – Implementation Framework Page 8

a relatively short time, will develop the capability to attract commercial linkages and additional research funding.

Being the focal point of research for the four NES species, the combined knowledge of the specialist researchers for each species will be ‘under one roof’. The knowledge gained from in- field research of each species will enable development of adaptive management techniques to be applied to habitat restoration and mitigation measures. In addition, environmental flow and release strategies for the storage will be devised in conjunction with the researchers. These will be designed to ensure that appropriate seasonal releases are made at appropriate times of year to ensure habitat, food and breeding cycles are maintained.

Furthermore, the CSIRO will provide a continuing independent third party reviewer role, to ensure that the research has been designed and conducted appropriately, and that the findings have been appropriately integrated into the relevant aspects of the Project, as well as the subsequent management operations, including the ongoing monitoring.

The establishment of the FSCC reflects QWI's commitment to build and operate a dam in an environmentally responsible way, by facilitating and supporting continued research efforts across four nationally listed species. The University of Queensland's involvement will ensure that the standard of research will be world class.

2.2 Species mitigation measures Commitment to a range of direct actions to mitigate the impact of the Project and ponded area on key aquatic species will be implemented. These include a fishway and turtle bypass as part of the dam design, revegetation and creation of turtle habitat and nesting sites along the perimeter of the storage and islands, and introduction of snag habitat and appropriate shelters in the storage for the Mary River Cod and Lungfish. Furthermore, the HRP (refer Appendix D) identifies Target Restoration Areas where these activities will be implemented.

QWI will work cooperatively with Queensland government fisheries scientists and turtle experts to develop an effective fishway and turtle bypass design. A Fishway Design Process, previously agreed by government for the Wyaralong Dam project, will be used for this Project. The Fishway Design Process outlines, among others, the engagement of key fisheries personnel during the design phase.

In addition, QWI has committed to provide $620,000 to boost the existing Mary River Cod breeding program at the Gerry Cook Fish Hatchery at Noosa.

QWI (through the MOU with QWaLC), will support the successful management actions in relation to the protection of the Mary River Turtle, including fencing nesting bank sites and control of grazing and feral animals to reduce the loss of turtle eggs.

2.3 Flow management The main environmental and social issues associated with flow management are maintenance of existing user entitlements, provision of environmental flows for aquatic species, and flooding upstream and downstream of the dam during high flow events.

The water resource planning process under the Queensland Water Act 2000 requires the establishment of stringent operating rules for new water infrastructure, including prescribed environmental flow objectives. The Project will be required by law to operate in a way that meets the conditions set out under the Resource Operations Licence (ROL) and Resource Operations Plan (ROP) to meet the mandatory environmental flow objectives.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Implementation Framework Page 9

Since the release of the EIS and Supplementary Reports, QWI has undertaken further hydrological modelling toward the development of an optimised release strategy for the Project. The Project can be operated to maintain/improve connectivity for water quality and fish movement in the reach downstream of the impoundment.

This “Secondary Optimisation” work has shown that Project operations can be optimised to achieve better environmental performance than currently exists under a business as usual scenario which services existing water entitlements.

QWI will further optimise the release strategy under the Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) (subordinate legislation to the Water Act 2000) during the design and construction phase of the Project. Development of the release strategy will provide:

• WRP compliance; • Appropriate flows for key ecological requirements of the Mary River Turtle, Mary River Cod and Queensland Lungfish; • Flexibility in operation of the impoundment to achieve environmental outcomes, including water quality and fish movement; and • Habitat connectivity (including during July to November months).

The final operation strategy proposed for the Project will continue to be optimised in order to provide the most appropriate balance between environmental flows and sustainable yield along with other benefits such as flood mitigation. Many competing ecological requirements exist for the flow regime downstream of the Project, and the final objectives for the optimised operating strategy will be informed by a Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) which will be part of the role of the FSCC.

Hydrological modelling predicts that the Project's impacts on flows within the Mary River will reduce rapidly with distance downstream of the Project area as inflows from tributaries increase the overall flow of the river. At Fisherman's Pocket gauge station approximately 90% of existing flows are predicted to pass this location with the Project in place, with 97% of existing flows predicted to pass at the estuary. Thus changes in environmental flows downstream of the Project are minimal and are not anticipated to impact on the Great Sandy Strait (Supplementary Report, 20.3.2). These conclusions are consistent with the Reviewer findings.

"I concur with the proponent that the species associated with the intertidal area and the large sea grass beds within the Great Sandy Strait, Ramsar Wetland, downstream of the proposed dam are unlikely to be greatly affected, given the upper catchment location of the proposed dam (~208km AMTD) and relatively minor flow alteration at the mouth of the river."

"Similarly, the proposed dam is unlikely to result in the loss, damage or degradation of any of the World Heritage values of either the Great Barrier Reef WHA or Fraser Island WHA". (Bunn, 2008)

QWI has committed to developing an optimised Flood Mitigation Plan during the detailed design stage which will be aimed at balancing the needs of upstream and downstream stakeholders and the environment. This plan will be developed in consultation with the Dam Safety Regulator, emergency services, local government, and community representatives. The Project will provide necessary flood relief to the town of Gympie (approximately 28 km downstream), and relevant upstream flood impact that may result from retention of floodwaters behind the dam wall will be mitigated via a range of local remedial solutions including the realignment of roads as detailed in the EIS.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Implementation Framework Page 10

2.4 Carbon offsets 2.4.1 Programs QWI aims to establish approximately 2,000 ha of commercial native hardwood plantations to provide carbon sequestration in relation to greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction of the Project and potentially other infrastructure associated with the SEQ Water Grid. Plantations would also provide opportunities for other industries such as bee keeping, medicinal honey, power poles, and alternative fuel sources as well as enhancing the biodiversity of the Mary Valley and providing connectivity between a range of ecosystems. This work is already under way via collaboration with Greening Australia, Griffith University, the University of the Sunshine Coast, CSIRO, Timber Queensland and other organisations such as Gympie & District Landcare. A 20 ha trial plantation has already been established which is in addition to a 28 ha eucalypt plantation already in QWI’s ownership. QWI ultimately aims to develop approximately 2,000 ha of commercial eucalypt plantations, including approximately 500 ha of a permanent mixed-species planting, and is currently assessing expressions of interest from plantation providers.

2.4.2 Carbon Offset Research Griffith University has been engaged by QWI to undertake a carbon offset assessment for tree growth under local conditions that may provide scope for utilising the plantation to meet or contribute to carbon accounting obligations under a future national emissions trading scheme (depending upon the final form of that scheme). Research initiatives will also look at ways to maximise sustainable productivity while minimising environmental impact.

2.5 Vegetation offsets A Vegetation Management Offset (VMO) will be implemented to mitigate impacts to significant regional ecosystems and vegetation communities. The VMO will comply with the guidelines detailed in Queensland’s Policy for Vegetation Management Offsets (NRW, 2007). The restoration of vegetation connectivity and generation of buffers for existing remnant vegetation will be sought wherever possible as an additional component of the offset strategy. This requires a focus on key areas where rehabilitation and management will provide the greatest ecological enhancements through increasing connectivity or providing buffers to high conservation value vegetation including significant Regional Ecosystems and riparian vegetation.

The VMO for the Project has been identified in the Supplementary Report as being approximately 500 ha. The final offset requirements and strategy will be finalised with the Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) to ensure compliance with the relevant legislative requirements, policies and guidelines.

Habitat restoration areas will be identified as part of the HRP with the establishment of approximately 310 ha of riparian and in-stream habitat.

2.6 Contaminated land The EIS identified 82 potentially contaminated sites through a historical review of aerial photography and searches of the Environmental Management Register and Contaminated Land Register. QWI has committed to a more detailed review which includes site inspections and interviews with landholders to confirm the number and type of potentially contaminated sites, and through the application of a risk matrix, which sites require further investigation.

The first stage of investigation will involve undertaking a Preliminary Site Investigation to confirm the presence of contamination and the likely need for remediation. For sites where contamination is found to be present at unacceptable levels, Detailed Site Investigations will be required to confirm the extent of contamination and remediation required. A remediation plan will then be

Traveston Crossing Dam – Implementation Framework Page 11

prepared for the site and implemented. Following the completion of remediation, validation will need to be undertaken to confirm that remediation has been completed.

The program of works will be completed under the approval of a Third Party Reviewer and the Department of Environment and Resource Management (formerly Environmental Protection Agency).

Contamination risk during construction, e.g. materials brought to site, chemical storage and handling, will be managed by relevant construction EMPs (see section 2.8).

2.7 Managing activities on QWI land QWI currently (May 2009) owns or has reached agreement to purchase more than 85% of land required for the Project. The use of the land is controlled by QWI to protect water quality and the structure of banks and streams. Activities prohibited, limited or controlled on the land located within the buffer area include the construction of permanent structures (excluding fencing) quarrying, mining, excavating and chemical spraying.

Restoration under the HRP can be accommodated within much of QWI’s extensive landholding. This means that the HRP can be implemented in a strategically optimal way, allowing large scale implementation of actions that will have an immediate benefit. This element of scale is not possible in any other part of the catchment and negates the “scale risk” that has compromised restoration attempts in this catchment and other catchments to date.

Key management activities proposed on QWI land include fencing of habitat remnants to exclude stock, vertebrate pest control, and weed management.

The fencing of key habitat remnants will commence immediately on Project approval. This will control stock and vehicle access to stream banks and shallows, protecting the habitat of each of the target species (for example, by preventing the trampling of Mary River Turtle nests by cattle and allowing regrowth of habitat of the Giant Barred Frog). It is intended that livestock be excluded from priority restoration areas within QWI landholdings within 12 months of approval representing significant and immediate scale of benefit.

A Vertebrate Pest Control program will be developed and implemented immediately on approval of the Project. The Pest Control program will be developed with a central focus of protecting the nesting habitat of the Mary River Turtle, but will benefit populations of all native species in the Project area.

A Weed Management Plan will also be developed and implemented on Project approval. Weed species threaten the nesting success of the Mary River Turtle (by colonising their historically bare nesting banks), compromise natural regeneration and alter vegetation structure and composition. Weeds may have significant economic and social impacts, as well as environmental impacts, including the reduction of biodiversity, degradation of water quality and increased risk of fire. Implementation of a comprehensive weed management strategy across the Project area will complement the actions proposed in the HRP by allowing natural regeneration, restoring a more natural habitat structure.

These measures will complement existing arrangements currently in place under lease provisions on QWI landholdings.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Implementation Framework Page 12

2.8 Environmental management during construction Impacts of the construction phase of the Project are mainly the responsibility of the contracted parties engaged to construct the dam and other infrastructure. Commitment to the key environmental issues to be addressed during this phase include:

• Erosion and sediment control and water quality; • Contaminated land; • Hazards and risks; • Noise; • Air quality; • Waste; • Site flora and fauna; • Site cultural heritage; • Transport and access; • Social and economic issues; and • Visual amenity.

Owing to the complexity of this large water infrastructure project, there will need to be collaboration with other agencies to work through some of the issues. A table that summarises the broad environmental management issues, key actions to address those issues, and suggested additional input is provided in Appendix C of the Implementation Framework.

2.9 Operational issues As outlined in the EIS (Chapter 4), the objectives for operation of the Project are to:

• Secure a yield of 70,000 ML/a of high priority water for the SEQ water grid; • Provide downstream flood mitigation benefit up to magnitude 1:100 AEP event; • Minimise upstream impacts of floods; • Safely pass flood flows such that the integrity of the dam is not compromised; • Minimise environmental degradation in and around the storage; • Meet the requirements specified in the WRP including environmental flow requirements; • Provide for effective operation of any fishway required; and • Minimise community impacts in the areas around the storage.

The lake will also be available for recreational use and QWI will provide facilities for this use. The public will be excluded from certain areas of the infrastructure for safety and security reasons and from islands dedicated as fauna refuges.

QWI has committed to a large number of environmental, social, and economic development programs which will continue well into the operational phase. In addition to those, QWI has made several commitments relating specifically to the operation of the Project.

An Operations and Maintenance Manual will also be prepared that includes procedures for:

• Operating the dam under normal conditions; • Coordination with other flow regulating structures within the catchment;

Traveston Crossing Dam – Implementation Framework Page 13

• Maintaining environmental flows (see Section 2.3 for further information); • Coordinating with emergency response and counter-disaster agencies; • Flood warning; • Maintaining the dam, associated structures and associated equipment in accordance with the designer’s operating criteria; • A program for surveillance and monitoring of the dam and associated equipment to allow early detection of faults; • Recording and reporting of routine and non-routine surveillance; and • Review of the Manual at regular intervals or when circumstances change.

An Emergency Action Plan or Dam Safety Emergency Plan will be developed, and include:

• Identification of emergency conditions which could endanger the integrity of the dam; • Dam operation procedures in emergency conditions; • Warning systems for downstream communities; • A notification flowchart; • Roles and responsibilities of the dam owner, operator and personnel; • An area map showing access routes to the storage during fair and adverse weather conditions (including travel distances and travel times); • A drawing of the storage catchment area; • Emergency events and action list; • Description of typical problems; • A dam failure inundation map together with textual descriptions of areas at risk; and • Any other charts and rating tables considered necessary by the dam owners.

QWI will develop the above documents to be finalised prior to operation.

2.10 Support for local businesses QWI has committed to supporting local business as part of its commitment to a sustainable Mary Valley economy in light of the many changes the Project would bring. A range of measures are already being put in place to support local businesses in the short, medium and long term. For example, contracts with suppliers, service providers and contractors maximise local industry participation via mechanisms such as the Local Industry Participation Plan, Local Business Opportunity Register, and Business Disturbance Payment Scheme. To date (May 2009), over 1,450 businesses have provided details for inclusion on the QWI Local Business Register as potential suppliers for the Project works.

Support for training of local people is a major commitment in QWI’s approach to enhancing participation in local businesses. QWI is already working with key service providers such as Wide Bay and Sunshine Coast TAFEs, Australian Industry Engineering Manufacturing Network (AIEM Net), Skilling Solutions Queensland, Wide Bay Training Group, Construction Skills Queensland, Minniecon & Burke, and State departments that cover employment, tourism, regional development and industry on a range of training and employment programs. Training programs range from Blue Card certification, rural fencing and civil construction to office administration. To date (May 2009), QWI has contributed to funding for 241 construction Blue Card certifications.

QWI has commenced the identification, encouragement and promotion of training, employment and business opportunities by funding jobseeker training and linking jobseekers with industry and

Traveston Crossing Dam – Implementation Framework Page 14

local employers. To date, funding has been provided under the current Queensland Government's “Skilling Queenslanders for Work” initiative to support employment participation in community infrastructure projects in the Mary Valley. Five such projects comprising a range of activities (e.g. construction and landscaping at Mary Valley State College, landscaping at Dagun and Kandanga Railway Stations, Mary River bank regeneration) have now been completed and a sixth is under way. Dedicated QWI staff are currently working with local groups such as Gympie and District Landcare and AIEM Net, to link employment opportunities with community projects and local businesses. QWI funding has been used for materials and other support on community infrastructure projects. An employment success rate of 71% of eligible applicants has been achieved, with 67 previously unemployed people having worked on projects.

The Queensland Government has a range of other employment programs to provide opportunities to unemployed people to work on public and community environmental projects (e.g. "Green Army").

2.11 Facilitating long-term sustainable local enterprises 2.11.1 Programs Many of the local business support programs outlined in section 2.10 (above) also apply to long-term sustainable local enterprises. In addition to those, QWI has committed up to $540,000 to partner with the Cooloola Regional Development Bureau and Gympie Regional Council to identify and pursue industry, tourism, economic development and employment opportunities, and facilitate major business initiatives.

QWI will also work with the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation to facilitate Imbil business development projects such as the Business Case for Imbil “Business Park” Project and with local business organisations, such as the Mary Valley Chamber of Commerce.

QWI aims to establish approximately 2,000 ha of commercial native timber plantations for carbon offsets (see section 2.4) will have a number of ancillary benefits such as a stimulation of the local timber industry. QWI has committed to work with Timber Queensland to assist growers, landholders, suppliers and industry to develop a business framework and to provide support for a sustainable local timber industry (refer Section 2.13).

2.11.2 Research Several research institutions will be engaged in socio-economic studies to assist QWI meet its social sustainability obligations. The University of the Sunshine Coast is scheduled to conduct a longitudinal study to quantify the benefits of local business opportunities, an economic analysis of sport and recreational facilities, and to develop an educational curriculum for the Environment Education Centre.

The Queensland University of Technology will provide research outcomes that advise QWI on best practice in sustainable project management, education and planning. The Queensland Museum will provide advice on ways to enhance knowledge and community understanding of the region’s history, culture, environment, industry and infrastructure.

2.12 Promoting the long-term sustainability of rural industries The Department of Employment, Economic Development & Innovation is working in partnership with QWI to deliver a combined $2.75 million of rural industry initiatives under the “Food & Fibre Futures Investment Partnership Plan”. Project plans are already in place for each of the plan’s programs which come under four key performance areas, i.e. adjustment, economic development, agribusiness partnerships, and policy coordination and advice. Sustainable riparian zone

Traveston Crossing Dam – Implementation Framework Page 15

management is one agribusiness partnership project being fast-tracked to assist the land management components (e.g. revegetation and stock exclusion) of the HRP.

As part of that commitment, investment into emerging technologies and industries has already commenced with pilot programs in medicinal honey and biofuels under way.

2.13 Maximising tourism opportunities Funding support in partnerships with Tourism Queensland, Tourism Sunshine Coast, other local tourism bodies and the State Government’s tourism department is aimed at developing and promoting tourism opportunities in the Mary Valley and better links with surrounding areas such as the Sunshine Coast. Activities involving these organisations include the development of a Visitor Attraction Program, and farm and nature tourism initiatives.

The Mary Valley Heritage Railway is strongly supported by QWI because of its iconic status in the region. Under a $1,150,000 funding commitment, QWI purchased a heritage steam locomotive in 2007, and will upgrade railway stations at Kandanga, Imbil, Amamoor and Dagun along with other infrastructure. This commitment also includes provision for a business analyst, marketing officer and associated activities to assist the long-term viability of the valley’s major tourism attraction.

2.14 Maintaining and enhancing community facilities in the Mary Valley QWI is already working closely with industry and the community to implement a range of community and recreational facilities. For example, concept planning has been undertaken for recreational trails around the dam and upon approval, further works are scheduled under this $4 million commitment. These trails will provide the necessary facilities for walking, mountain biking and horse riding. A demonstration downhill mountain bike track is already under construction, utilising linkages with training and employment programs.

Joint funding has been provided for a new toilet block in Kandanga and bus pull-in bays to improve safety in the town (both now complete). Planning work is well advanced for a new $3 million sports centre at Kandanga, with plans lodged with the Gympie Regional Council for approval. Other facilities and support that QWI has committed to provide via dedicated projects include:

• Visitor and Environment Education Centre; • Upgraded sewerage and water reticulation infrastructure in Kandanga (joint funding with Gympie Regional Council); • Upgrades and possible relocation of the rural fire brigade headquarters; • Gympie Music Muster; • Gympie and District Landcare; • Continuation of an information centre for the “Friends of Kandanga”; • Terminal, clubhouse and community facilities at Gympie Aero Club; • Recreational facilities at Gympie East State School; • Heart of Gold International Film Festival; • Facilities contribution for Dingo Creek Jazz & Blues Inc.; • Funding to various sporting clubs, e.g. swimming, soccer, tennis, cricket, archery and croquet; and • Support to Gympie Motorcycle Club for motocross events.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Implementation Framework Page 16

2.15 Cultural heritage 2.15.1 Indigenous cultural heritage QWI has entered into an Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) with native title parties for the Project area. The ILUA gives native title parties the opportunity to identify the nature and scale of cultural heritage issues to be managed and implement the necessary management processes. The ILUA provides the agreement by which cultural heritage is managed. This agreement, the Cultural Heritage Investigation and Management Agreement (CHIMA) sets out the process by which identification, management, mitigation and penalties as set down under the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (ACHA) may be applied.

The ACHA also addresses any Project implementation areas which fall outside the ILUA boundary. For these areas, a Cultural Heritage Management Plan agreement (CHMP) is required between QWI and the identified aboriginal parties. The CHMP sets out the process by which identification, management, mitigation and penalties as set down under the ACHA may be applied. As a consequence of QWI entering into contract agreements to implement the HRP, all indigenous issues associated with those works will be the responsibility of, and managed by, a QWI Cultural Heritage Manager. The Cultural Heritage Manager will also oversee the incorporation of cultural displays and signage in recreational trails, reserves, visitor and educational centres, and provide input to local indigenous employment programs.

2.15.2 Non-indigenous cultural heritage An assessment of non-indigenous cultural heritage was undertaken as part of the EIS, identifying few areas or items of heritage significance. As part of the Project, a further field assessment of non-indigenous cultural heritage within the Project area will be undertaken. The significance of any sites, structures or items will be determined via consideration of the criteria stipulated in the Queensland Heritage Act 1992.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Implementation Framework Page 17

3 GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS

3.1 Implementation process The implementation programs will be delivered through two streams:

• Direct contracts with organisations to complete a specified program of works (e.g. revegetation of a particular river reach by a Landcare group); and • Through partnerships with organisations which are undertaking relevant works under their own programs (e.g. Department of Employment, Economic Development & Innovation, Food & Fibre Futures Program).

Contracted projects will be carried out by private sector organisations or not-for-profit groups under standard commercial terms. For each program and project, QWI has or will develop a full scope of works with key performance indicators (KPIs) against which progress will be checked by QWI project managers and auditors.

Environmental and social research programs will occur in parallel with the implementation projects so that QWI can integrate the latest knowledge into existing and future activities. QWI has also committed to environmental and socio-economic outcomes being independently audited by an Expert Peer Reviewers Panel against agreed sustainability criteria.

3.2 Interface Groups In order to achieve informed and integrated outcomes, QWI will establish four Interface Groups. These Interface Groups will be themed to generally accord with the broad grouping of commitments, and will consist of various government and non-government groups and committees, as referred to in Figure 3-1 below.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Implementation Framework Page 18

Approval Agency Audit Interface Interface Group Group

Chair: QWI General Chair: QWI Company Manager Environment Secretary ƒ CoG ƒ CSIRO ƒ DEWHA Community and Environment and ƒ Relevant agencies ƒ DERM Business Interface Research Interface ƒ Contracted ƒ DEEDI (Fisheries) Group Group organisations ƒ Other Agencies as required Chair: QWI General Chair: QWI General Manager Stakeholder Manager Environment Management ƒ UQ ƒ AIEM ƒ Griffith Uni ƒ Chambers of ƒ QUT Commerce ƒ CSU ƒ Relevant Gov ƒ USQ Agencies ƒ Other FSCC Reps ƒ Local Governments ƒ Forestry Reps ƒ Relevant Community ƒ Greening Australia Groups ƒ QWaLC ƒ BMRG ƒ NRM Groups

Figure 3-1 Proposed Interface Groups

The main function of the Interface Groups will be to:

• Ensure that relevant knowledge is incorporated into the proposed activities; and • Provide timely updates on the progress of activities and timeframes for future scheduled activities.

Furthermore, CSIRO will provide an annual independent review against the sustainability criteria developed for the Project.

3.3 Implementation phases QWI proposes to commence the program of activities immediately, upon Project approval. As discussed above, QWI has already undertaken a number of Skilling Queenslanders for Work Programs, and has Memoranda of Understanding with key groups to enable on ground rehabilitation and restoration activities to commence upon approval of the Project, thus demonstrating its commitment to a comprehensive implementation program. Table 3-1 summarises the phases of the implementation program and a timeframe based on months following Project approval.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Implementation Framework Page 19

Table 3-1 Timeframe for implementation of governance arrangements Implementation Phase Timeframe (Post Approval) QWI develops full scope of works to meet initial round of EIS Upon Approval commitments QWI develops KPIs for all actions required to meet commitments Upon Approval QWI invites proposals from key organisations to undertake and/or 1 month facilitate relevant programs of works Interface Groups are established 1 month Interface Groups meet for the first time and endorse charters and Within 3 months of Approval meeting programs Interface Groups meet to report on progress Quarterly or as required Expert Peer Reviewers Panel audits progress (CSIRO) Annually

These implementation commitments are in addition to the statutory and legislative reporting requirements. Examples include water resource planning and conditions of approval, and the independent auditing proposed to be conducted by the CSIRO.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Implementation Framework Page 20

4 REFERENCES

BMRG 2005, Country to Coast – A Healthy Sustainable Future: Regional Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan, Burnett Mary Regional Group for Natural Resource Management, Bundaberg, http://www.bmrg.org.au/downloads/NRM_Plan/Volume2NRMPLAN06Feb05.pdf .

BMRG 2008, Annual Report 2007/08, Burnett Mary Regional Group, Bundaberg, http://www.bmrg.org.au/downloads/BMRG_08_ANN_REPORT_FINAL_%28WEB%29.pdf .

EPA 2009, Burnett Mary ‘Back on Track’ Biodiversity Action Plan, Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane.

DEWHA & DAFF 2008, ‘Caring for our Country’ Business Plan 2009-2010, Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Environment, Water, Heritage & the Arts; Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry), Canberra.

MRCCC 2001, Mary River & Tributaries Rehabilitation Plan (Implementation Edition 19 July 2001), Mary River Catchment Coordinating Committee, Gympie.

NRW 2007, Policy for Vegetation Management Offsets, Queensland Government (Department of Natural Resources & Water), Brisbane.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Implementation Framework Page 21

Summary of Full Implementation Program

Summary of Full Implementation Program Appendix A

APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF FULL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

Traveston Crossing Dam – Implementation Framework Page A-1

APPENDIX A1: QWI Commitments - Summary of implementation programs#^

KEY OUTCOME AREA* MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS RESPONSIBILITY RESEARCH COMMITMENTS RESEARCH AGENCY Sustainable Ecological Catchments Rehabilitation of the Mary River & Riparian vegetation rehabilitation of Habitat Restoration Plan (HRP) which QWI in partnership with Greening Applied research projects to answer Freshwater Species Conservation Centre tributaries to restore functioning habitats Target Restoration Areas for Mary River outlines the area and length of riparian Australia, specific questions relating to the (FSCC) (University of Queensland) for species of National Environmental Turtle, Mary River Cod, Queensland and in-stream habitat to be restored, Queensland Water & Land Carers Inc. management of the Mary River Cod, undertake both streams of research Significance Lungfish and Giant Barred Frog, targets, performance criteria, monitoring (QWaLC - the peak body for NRM Mary River Turtle, Queensland Lungfish, (applied projects and ongoing ecological) achieved via location-specific actions.. methods etc. (highlights the achievement volunteers),Burnett Mary Regional Group and Giant Barred Frog. on the four species of significance. of measurable short-term outcomes prior (BMRG). Academic research into the ecology of Burnett Mary Regional Group, Greening to construction). the above four species to assist in their Australia will undertake some research Reach-specific and/or task-specific long-term survival. and monitoring work towards the

contracts with natural resource enhancement of biodiversity. management (NRM) groups (planning commenced). Possible participation in Queensland Government’s “Green Army” employment Department of Employment Economic program. Development & Innovation (DEEDI) for Green Army program. Enhancement of in-stream habitat using Reach-specific and task-specific QWI in partnership with Greening salvaged logs and branches, and other contracts with contractors, Greening Australia, QWaLC, and BMRG. resources vegetation from clearing the Australia and QWaLC Landcare and inundation area. Catchment Care groups.

Aquatic and riparian weed control. Management actions as outlined in the QWI in partnership with DEEDI and Feral animal management. Habitat Restoration Plan (HRP). landholders for riparian land management BMRG $3.575 million Mitigation Package. QWI in partnership with Burnett Mary Regional Group.

Land management improvements. Riparian Zone Management Project QWI in partnership with DEEDI and Applied scientific research and advice USQ (Prof. Roger Stone) within DEEDI (ex DPIF) Food & Fibre landholders for riparian land from the University of Southern Futures Program. management. Queensland (USQ) about climate BMRG mitigation package. QWI in partnership with Greening modelling, climate forecasting and Australia, QWaLC and BMRG. integrated climate-agricultural-financial- water resource modelling to assist in climate appropriate and optimised land remediation, plantation management and land management practice. Additional catchment management Opportunities for funding through the QWI in partnership with BMRG, Potential research as a component of To be determined. activities. Commonwealth “Caring for our Country” Landcare/Catchment Care groups and CfoC funded projects. (CfoC) program will be sought via others for joint funding applications. collaborative projects. Direct actions to mitigate the impact of Incorporation of fishwayand turtle bypass Collaborative work to design fish and QWI in partnership with DEEDI fisheries Optimal designs for fishway and turtle FSCC the dam on species of National into Project design turtle movement devices via government- scientists for fishway design. bypass. DEEDI approved Fishway Design Process. Environmental Significance QWI in partnership with turtle experts for DERM design of turtle bypass.

Creation of turtle habitat and potential QWI funded programs for revegetation QWI in partnership with Greening Relevant applied research projects. FSCC relocation of known nesting sites. and habitat creation along edges of Australia, QWaLC and BMRG. Introduction of snag habitat in storage. impoundment, in accordance with HRP. Protection of turtle nests and Vegetation retention and revegetation management measures through support along storage fringe and on islands. of Tiaro and District Landcare. Introduction of habitat for sheltering Mary # Refer to Section 2 of Implementation Framework for full description of implementation programs. Implementation Framework Appendix A1: Page 1 ^Coloured cells correspond to similarly coloured cells in “species-specific commitments” tables that appear in chapters 3 to 6 of the Response to Reviewers’ Reports (QWI’s response to the DEWHA independent reviews). * Key Outcome Areas are grouped commitments (under three CSIRO sustainability principles) derived from Table 30-5 (Chapter 30) of the Supplementary Report.

KEY OUTCOME AREA* MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS RESPONSIBILITY RESEARCH COMMITMENTS RESEARCH AGENCY River Cod and the lungfish. Assistance to cod breeding programs. Financial contribution to Gerry Cook Fish QWI in partnership with Noosa & District Relevant applied research projects. FSCC Hatchery Hatchery Association and Sunshine Coast Regional Council for fish breeding programs. Flow management for flood mitigation, Develop operating procedures in line with Optimised Release Strategy QWI with advice from FSCC scientists on Research on flow requirements of FSCC (Scientific Advisory Panel) maintenance of user entitlements, and Resource Operations Plan (ROP) to Operating Procedures species flow requirements. aquatic species will be a necessary input optimisation of environmental flows comply with Water Allocation Security Input from Dept of Environment & to environmental flow management Objectives and Environmental Flow Resource Management on ROP arrangements. Objectives. requirements.

Develop an optimised flood mitigation Flood Mitigation Plan QWI in consultation with emergency Further flood modelling QWI in partnership with hydrological plan that balances the needs of upstream services, local government, community scientists. and downstream stakeholders and the representatives. environment. Carbon offsets Aim to develop approximately 2,000 ha 28 ha eucalypt plantation already QWI in partnership with Greening Carbon offset assessment for tree growth Griffith University of forest and plantations. purchased. Australia, Timber Queensland, Gympie & under local conditions. 20 ha trial plantation underway. District Landcare Maximisation of sustainable productivity Expression of Interest process to secure Commercial contract with plantation with minimal environmental impact. plantation provider/s. provider/s. Vegetation offsets Develop a Vegetation Management The VMO for the Project will be in the QWI Environmental Manager with Research to determine key areas where QWI in partnership with vegetation Offset (VMO) to mitigate impacts to order of 500 ha. The final offset guidance from Department of rehabilitation and management will specialists. significant regional ecosystems and requirements and strategy will be Environment and Resource provide the greatest ecological vegetation communities. finalised with DERM to ensure Management. enhancements through increasing compliance with the relevant legislative connectivity or providing buffers to high requirements, policies and guidelines. conservation value vegetation including In addition, habitat restoration areas will significant Regional Ecosystems and be identified as part of the HRP with the riparian vegetation. establishment of approximately 310 ha of riparian and instream habitat. Contaminated Land Identify all contaminated sites and Preliminary Site Investigation to QWI contracts specialist consultants. Field surveys and site inspections. Specialist contaminated land consultants. undertake necessary remediation actions accurately identify contaminated sites. QWI in collaboration with Gympie prior to commencement of construction. Detailed Site Investigation for identified Regional Council for septic tank works. (Management of contamination risk contamination sites. during construction is dealt with in the Construction EMP (see below). Relevant remediation works.

Managing activities on QWI land Management of land, including As of May 2009, 85% of Project area QWI funded works, in collaboration with Research inputs to turtle nesting site FSCC leaseback areas, including prohibition of now in QWI ownership or under local Landcare and Catchment Care management, particularly impact of stock activities within buffer areas that may agreement to purchase. Leaseback groups. and feral animals. threaten river banks and water quality. areas are managed to protect water quality and bank integrity. Much of QWI land will be under rehabilitation as part of the HRP. Management programs include:

„ fencing of remnant habitat to exclude stock,

„ vertebrate pest control, and

„ weed management. Environmental management during Various management measures (refer to Various Environmental Management Construction Contractors Site-specific research on EVR flora to QWI in partnership with vegetation construction Supplementary Report Chapter 30 for full Plans that cover: inform plant translocation plans and specialists.

details, and Appendix E1 in the „ Erosion and sediment control and actions. Implementation Framework for a concise water quality Research on weeds to inform preparation summary) QWI in partnership with vegetation of Weed Management Plan. specialists, BMRG and other NRM # Refer to Section 2 of Implementation Framework for full description of implementation programs. Implementation Framework Appendix A1: Page 2 ^Coloured cells correspond to similarly coloured cells in “species-specific commitments” tables that appear in chapters 3 to 6 of the Response to Reviewers’ Reports (QWI’s response to the DEWHA independent reviews). * Key Outcome Areas are grouped commitments (under three CSIRO sustainability principles) derived from Table 30-5 (Chapter 30) of the Supplementary Report.

KEY OUTCOME AREA* MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS RESPONSIBILITY RESEARCH COMMITMENTS RESEARCH AGENCY

„ Contaminated land groups.

„ Hazards and risks Research on road, access and QWI in partnership with specialist

„ Noise intersection upgrades to comply with EIS transport engineers, Queensland Police, provisions. Development of Traffic and Dept of Transport and Main Roads. „ Air quality Road Use Management Plans „ Waste

„ Site flora and fauna Research to inform preparation of QWI in partnership with landscape „ Site cultural heritage landscape designs for dam wall, design specialists. „ Transport and access embankments, spillway and other exposed infrastructure, as well as for „ social and economic issues associated road infrastructure. „ visual amenity Dam operational issues Put systems in place for operation and Operations and Maintenance Manual QWI/Dam Operator Research to inform development of FSCC (Scientific Advisory Panel). maintenance of the Project, including Emergency Action Plan or Dam Safety operating procedures with respect to recreational use of the lake, as well as Emergency Plan environmental flows. emergency procedures and documentation. Sustainable Local Enterprises Support for local businesses and Ensure contracts with suppliers, service Local Industry Participation Plan QWI in partnership with Business n/a n/a employment providers and contractors maximise local Local Business Opportunity Register Capabilities Working Group and Industry industry participation (1,450 businesses registered as at Capability Network Queensland, AIEM. May 2009) Local Employment Register Contractor Networking functions Identify, encourage and promote training, Jobseeker training and linking with QWI working with key service providers, n/a n/a employment and business opportunities. industry and local employers. e.g. Wide Bay and Sunshine Coast Deliver labour market programs. “Skilling Queenslanders for Work” TAFEs, AIEM Net, Skilling Solutions projects to improve community facilities Queensland, Wide Bay Training Group, and provide jobs for unemployed local Construction Skills Queensland, workers (5 projects completed, 67 local Minniecon & Burke, DEEDI. people employed, 71% employment success rate from those eligible). Target is at least 10 such labour market programs for community works in construction and land remediation. Hands-on training programs including Blue Card certification, rural fencing, civil construction, and office administration.

To date (May 2009), QWI has contributed to funding for 241 construction Blue Card certifications. Support to Australian Industry Engineering Manufacturing Network QWI in partnership with DEEDI Green (AIEM Net). Army program. Possible participation in Queensland Government’s “Green Army” employment program to provide hands for habitat rehabilitation works. Facilitating long-term sustainable local Identify and pursue industry, tourism, Continuation of programs that will QWI in partnership with Gympie Regional Longitudinal study to quantify benefits of University of the Sunshine Coast enterprises economic development and employment support local businesses and Council, and Mary Valley Chamber of local business opportunities. opportunities. employment (see above row). In Commerce. Development of education curriculum for addition, a $550,000 has been made to Environment Education Centre. identify long-term opportunities. Economic analysis of sport and recreational facilities.

# Refer to Section 2 of Implementation Framework for full description of implementation programs. Implementation Framework Appendix A1: Page 3 ^Coloured cells correspond to similarly coloured cells in “species-specific commitments” tables that appear in chapters 3 to 6 of the Response to Reviewers’ Reports (QWI’s response to the DEWHA independent reviews). * Key Outcome Areas are grouped commitments (under three CSIRO sustainability principles) derived from Table 30-5 (Chapter 30) of the Supplementary Report.

KEY OUTCOME AREA* MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS RESPONSIBILITY RESEARCH COMMITMENTS RESEARCH AGENCY Facilitate major business initiatives. Business Case for Imbil Business Park QWI in partnership with Department of Research support and guidance to Queensland University of Technology Project Employment, Economic Development & achieve best practice in sustainable Innovation. project management, education and

planning. Provision of advice on ways to enhance Queensland Museum local knowledge and community understanding of the region’s history, culture, environment, industry and infrastructure. Ensuring the long-term sustainability of Investment in sustainable farming $2.75 million “Food and Fibre Futures QWI in partnership with DEEDI (the part Parallel research into sustainable farming DEEDI rural industries practices and the development of new Package” which includes the following formerly DPI&F). practices, emerging technologies (e.g. industries. projects: Commercial enterprises directly engaged biofuels), and other agribusiness „ Riparian zone management by QWI. programs.

„ Embracing emerging technologies A range of industry bodies and (commenced) landholders will also be involved.

„ Region agribusiness audit

„ Region Resource Guide

„ Promotion of Mary Valley region investment opportunities

„ Regional agribusiness networks

„ Rural enterprise development

„ Food value-added industries

„ Aquatic and terrestrial weed management Maximising tourism opportunities Develop initiatives to promote and Visitor Attraction Program. QWI in partnership with Tourism n/a n/a develop tourism opportunities in the Mary Funding program for Sunshine Coast Queensland and local tourism bodies. Valley, including better links from the linkage initiatives. QWI in partnership with Tourism Sunshine Coast hinterland. Sunshine Coast. Facilitate specific tourism projects. Farm and Nature Tourism Business QWI in partnership with Department of n/a n/a Development Program. Employment, Economic Development & Innovation. Assist the long-term viability of Mary Funding commitments for QWI in partnership with Mary Valley n/a n/a

Valley Heritage Railway „ Upgrades to Kandanga, Imbil, Heritage Railway Committee. Amamoor and Dagun railway stations and other infrastructure (planning commenced)

„ An additional heritage steam locomotive (already purchased)

„ Business analyst, marketing officer and associated activities. Sustainable Communities Maintaining and enhancing community Provide funds for community and Continued provision of Friends of QWI in partnership with Friends of n/a n/a facilities in the Mary Valley recreational infrastructure and facilities Kandanga Information Centre. Kandanga as well as community events

Funding contribution to Kandanga Sports MOU between QWI and various sporting Centre (under way) clubs. Joint funding for new toilet block in QWI in partnership with Gympie Regional Kandanga (completed) Council Joint funding for bus pull-in bays QWI in partnership with Department of (completed) Main Roads

# Refer to Section 2 of Implementation Framework for full description of implementation programs. Implementation Framework Appendix A1: Page 4 ^Coloured cells correspond to similarly coloured cells in “species-specific commitments” tables that appear in chapters 3 to 6 of the Response to Reviewers’ Reports (QWI’s response to the DEWHA independent reviews). * Key Outcome Areas are grouped commitments (under three CSIRO sustainability principles) derived from Table 30-5 (Chapter 30) of the Supplementary Report.

KEY OUTCOME AREA* MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS RESPONSIBILITY RESEARCH COMMITMENTS RESEARCH AGENCY Planning and development of sewering QWI in partnership with Gympie Regional and improved reticulated water supply for Council Kandanga. Provide land for the relocation of QWI Property Management Team community infrastructure in the Federal precinct, including the Federal Hall, Federal School, Rural Fire Brigade Various other programs including: QWI funded projects

„ Visitor and Environment Education Centre

„ Tourist and art/craft facilities for the Imbil Development Group

„ Improvement works to Brooloo Hall

„ Gympie Music Muster

„ Gympie & District Landcare

„ Terminal, clubhouse and community facilities at Gympie Aero Club

„ Recreational facilities at Gympie East State School

„ Heart of Gold International Film Festival

„ Facilities contribution for Dingo Creek Jazz & Blues Inc.

„ Funding to various sporting clubs, e.g. swimming, soccer, tennis, cricket, archery and croquet

„ Support to Gympie Motorcycle Club for motocross events. Provide a track and trail network, and A $4 million commitment to Community QWI with input from Queensland Outdoor n/a n/a associated facilities, that caters for a Trails Network Project (planned), Recreation Federation, Riding for range of recreational pursuits, including including recreation facilities at nodes Disabled Association Queensland, and walking, canoeing, horse riding, and along trails. mountain bike trails designers. mountain biking.

Maintenance and enhancement of Skilling Queenslanders for Work program n/a n/a outdoor recreation facilities (walking trail, managed by AIEM Net in partnership mountain bike events trail, climbing with QWI. training facilities, ropes courses) as a demonstration at the Garapine site (under way). Provide access for mobility impaired Advice on design and planning of QWI in partnership with organisations n/a n/a members of the community. community facilities and dam such as Cooloola Access Advisory infrastructure for mobility impaired Committee, Cooloola Human Services access. Network Indigenous Cultural Heritage Mutually agreed management processes Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) QWI Cultural Heritage Project Manager. n/a n/a between QWI and traditional owners in for land in impoundment area only. conjunction with an Indigenous Land Use ILUA implemented via a Cultural Agreement. Heritage Investigation and Management Agreement to ensure culturally appropriate on-ground works. Cultural Heritage Management Plans for activities that involve Aboriginal parties in areas outside the ILUA area.

# Refer to Section 2 of Implementation Framework for full description of implementation programs. Implementation Framework Appendix A1: Page 5 ^Coloured cells correspond to similarly coloured cells in “species-specific commitments” tables that appear in chapters 3 to 6 of the Response to Reviewers’ Reports (QWI’s response to the DEWHA independent reviews). * Key Outcome Areas are grouped commitments (under three CSIRO sustainability principles) derived from Table 30-5 (Chapter 30) of the Supplementary Report.

KEY OUTCOME AREA* MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS RESPONSIBILITY RESEARCH COMMITMENTS RESEARCH AGENCY Indigenous cultural heritage displays and interpretive information within recreational areas. Indigenous employment program. Non-indigenous Cultural Heritage Develop management strategies Field assessment and development of QWI Cultural Heritage Project Manager. n/a n/a management strategies for any places or items of historical significance.

# Refer to Section 2 of Implementation Framework for full description of implementation programs. Implementation Framework Appendix A1: Page 6 ^Coloured cells correspond to similarly coloured cells in “species-specific commitments” tables that appear in chapters 3 to 6 of the Response to Reviewers’ Reports (QWI’s response to the DEWHA independent reviews). * Key Outcome Areas are grouped commitments (under three CSIRO sustainability principles) derived from Table 30-5 (Chapter 30) of the Supplementary Report.

Letters of Commitment – Greening Australia & QWaLC

Letters of Commitment – Letters of Commitment Greening Australia & QWaLC Greening Australia Appendix B

APPENDIX B LETTERS OF COMMITMENT – GREENING AUSTRALIA & QWALC

Traveston Crossing Dam – Implementation Framework Page B-1

Summary of Construction Appendix C EMP Commitments Summary of Construction EMP Commitments

APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION EMP COMMITMENTS

Traveston Crossing Dam – Summary of Construction EMP Commitments Page C-1

ENVIRONMENTAL KEY ACTIONS ADDITIONAL INPUT ISSUE Erosion/Sediment • Soil & Water Management Plan Control & Water Quality • Topsoil Management Plan • Erosion Risk Assessment • Erosion & Sediment Control Plan • Rehabilitation & revegetation of borrow areas. • Maintenance of normal flows during construction. Contaminated Land • PSI assessment process and remediation • Collaboration with local actions in accordance with DERM government for septic tank requirements. assessment. • Septic tank risk assessment. • Collaboration with DERM on • Obtain approval and a disposal permit from specific issues if they arise. EPA. • Management Plan for potential contaminated sites. • Management Plan for materials brought on- site. • Fuel, oil and chemical storage in accordance with Australian standards and procedures. Hazards and Risks • Management in accordance with details of • Consultation with Queensland each specific EMP. Police and Emergency • Public safety risk assessment. Services Queensland to • Preparation and implementation of a Safety develop emergency response Management System. procedures etc. • Environmental Awareness training as part of • Consultation with Dept Main all site inductions. Roads and local government on relevant road signage. • Specialist explosives company engaged. • Transport of dangerous goods managed via licensed transporters, aided by signage indicating a drinking water catchment. • Emergency Action Plan or Dam Safety Emergency Plan. • Operations and Maintenance Manual. Noise • Compliance with relevant EMPs. • Consultation with the local • Construction activities in accordance with community prior to major Australian Standards. construction activities, e.g. • Informing the community about upcoming blasting. construction activities. Air Quality • Compliance with relevant EMP. • Air Quality Management Plan • Establishment of dust concentration and deposition monitoring network. Waste • Compliance with relevant EMP. • Site-specific Waste Management Plan. • Suppliers to take back their packaging. • Transport of “regulated waste” in accordance with EPA’s regulations. Flora and Fauna • Development and installation of fish transfer • Input from DEEDI, DERM and mechanism on the dam and a turtle ramp other experts on fishway and system. turtle bypass design. • Timber from cleared trees will be used for • Qualified botanist to be on-site commercial purposes, aquatic and terrestrial when vegetation clearing fauna habitat creation / rehabilitation, occurs within areas likely to

Traveston Crossing Dam – Summary of Construction EMP Commitments Page C-2

ENVIRONMENTAL KEY ACTIONS ADDITIONAL INPUT ISSUE landscaping or mulching. support EVR plant species, • Vegetation Clearance Management Plan to e.g. Slender Milkvine. prevent excessive clearing and damage. • Collaboration with NRM • Restrict clearing within 1.5 m of full supply groups for weed management level in tributary riparian zones. and revegetation plans and • Translocation Plan for Slender Milkvine. works. • Weed Management Plan. • Registered spotter/catcher on-site prior to clearing of fauna habitat trees. • Post-construction Landscaping and Revegetation Plan. Cultural Heritage • All site operations in accordance with Cultural • Consultation with Aboriginal Heritage Investigation & Management parties if items found. Strategy. • Consultation with DERM • “Cease work” response to any indigenous (Cultural Heritage object finds on-site. Coordination Unit) if items • Cultural Heritage awareness training for all on- found. site personnel. Transport & Access • Road, access, and intersection changes or • Consultation with various upgrades undertaken in accordance with EIS parties on potential provisions. improvements during the • Traffic Management Plan for all elements of detailed road design stage. the works plus associated training for • Consultation with Queensland personnel to ensure compliance. Police, Ambulance Service, • Road Use Management Plan for all haulage Fire & Rescue Service, and contractors. Transport regarding road safety management during construction. Social & Economic • Project Communication Plan to provide • Consultation with local construction updates and schedules, and EMP community on involvement in monitoring results. environmental management • Continuation of freecall service, mail and web- and monitoring. based feedback forms during construction. • Local community participation • Complaint Response System. in a Local Business • Construction accommodation camp to Opportunity Register to consider potential future uses, e.g. affordable promote use of local goods housing, recreational use, functional open and services. space. • Contractors and suppliers maximise local industry participation. • Provision of a visitor centre during construction. • Annual Activity Report on progress against environmental, social and economic objectives of the project. • Effective promotion at end of construction on timing and availability of facilities. Visual Amenity • Landscape Design and Management Plan for • Consultation with design and construction of dam wall, neighbouring landholders, embankments, spillway and other exposed businesses and the infrastructure. community on the Landscape • Landscape Assessment & Design Plans for all Master Plan for the inundation road projects. area. • Landscape Master Plan for inundation area prior to construction. • Lighting to conform to Australian Standards.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Summary of Construction EMP Commitments Page C-3

Appendix D

Habitat Restoration Plan Habitat Restoration Plan

CONTENTS

Executive Summary 1. Background 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Habitat Restoration Plan 1-1 1.2 HRP Process 1-1 1.3 Rationale 1-6 1.4 Content of this HRP 1-8 2. Determining Restoration Targets 2-1 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2.2 Offset Metrics – Existing Policy 2-1 2.2.1 Qld NRW Policy for Vegetation Management Offsets 2-1 2.2.2 Qld Offsets for Net Benefits to Koalas and Koala Habitat 2-2 2.2.3 Qld Draft Biodiversity Offset Policy 2-2 2.3 Offset Metrics Developed for the Project 2-3 2.4 Additional Offset Commitments 2-5 2.5 Required Value of the Rehabilitation Package 2-5 3. Identification of Restoration Investigation Areas 3-1 3.1 Background 3-1 3.2 Spatial Analysis 3-1 3.3 Buffer Widths and Landscape Design 3-1 3.3.1 Background 3-1 3.3.2 Landscape design for biodiversity conservation 3-1 3.3.3 Buffer widths for water quality 3-2 3.4 Land Availability 3-2 4. Riparian Restoration Strategy 4-1 4.1 Objectives 4-1 4.2 Priority Restoration Activities 4-1 4.2.1 Priority Communities 4-1 4.2.2 Priority Restoration Areas 4-2 4.3 Implementation of the Riparian Rehabilitation Strategy 4-10 5. In-stream Habitat Restoration Strategy 5-1 5.1 Objectives 5-1 5.2 Priority Restoration Activities 5-1 5.2.1 Habitat Creation Overview 5-2 5.2.2 Preparation of Reach Scale Prescriptions 5-3 5.2.3 Priority Restoration Areas 5-3 5.3 Restoration Targets 5-4 5.3.1 Benchmark data 5-4 5.3.2 Targets for In-stream Habitat Complexity 5-5

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page i

6. Demonstrating Nett Conservation Benefit in the Short Term 6-1 6.1 Rationale 6-1 6.2 Performance Indicators 6-1 6.2.1 Area of land under rehabilitation 6-1 6.2.2 Habitat Index of in-stream rehabilitation sites 6-1 6.2.3 Performance Targets 6-1 6.2.4 Specific timeframes for use of rehabilitated areas by the four NES species 6-2 6.2.5 Natural Disasters 6-2 7. Implementation of this HRP 7-1 7.1 Immediate Actions 7-1 7.2 Catchment Condition Outcomes 7-1 7.3 Immediate Benefits of HRP Implementation 7-5 7.3.1 Habitat Protection 7-5 7.3.2 Vertebrate Pest Control 7-5 7.3.3 Weed Control 7-6 8. Uptake of Restoration Areas 8-1 8.1 Overview 8-1 8.2 Uptake of revegetated areas by Giant Barred Frog 8-1 8.3 Use of Restoration Reaches by Aquatic Species 8-4 8.4 Likelihood of catastrophic decline in four NES species 8-4 9. Monitoring Methodology 9-1 9.1 Monitoring of Riparian Restoration Works 9-1 9.1.1 Detecting Biodiversity Benefit 9-1 9.1.2 Short-term Monitoring Condition of Revegetation Sites 9-1 9.1.3 Long term Monitoring of Revegetation Sites 9-5 9.1.4 Monitoring of Giant Barred Frog 9-7 9.2 Monitoring of In-stream Habitat Restoration 9-7 9.2.1 Background 9-7 9.2.2 Methodology 9-7 9.2.3 Frequency of monitoring 9-8 10. References 10-1 Appendix A Current Status of Four NES species in the Mary Catchment A-1 A.1 Background A-1 A.2 Mary River Turtle, Elusor macrurus A-1 A.3 Mary River Cod, Maccullochella peelii mariensis A-3 A.4 Giant Barred Frog, Mixophyes iteratus A-3 A.5 Queensland Lungfish, Neoceratodus forsteri A-4 A.6 Summary A-5 Appendix B Habitat Assessment and Offset Metrics, Mary River Turtle B-1 B.1 Critical Habitat Requirements B-2

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page ii

B.2 Extent of Habitat in the Project Area B-2 B.3 Habitat Suitability Criteria B-2 B.4 Extent of Habitat in the Project Area B-3 B.5 Calculating Residual Habitat Impact B-3 B.6 Residual Habitat Impact B-4 B.7 Required Value of the Rehabilitation Package B-5 Appendix C Habitat Assessment and Offset Metrics, Mary River Cod C-1 C.1 Critical Habitat Requirements C-2 C.2 Extent of Habitat in the Project Area C-2 C.3 Habitat Suitability Criteria C-2 C.4 Extent of Habitat in the Project Area C-3 C.5 Calculating Residual Habitat Impact C-3 C.6 Residual Habitat Impact C-4 C.7 Required Value of the Rehabilitation Package C-5 Appendix D Habitat Assessment and Offset Metrics, Giant Barred Frog D-1 D.1 Current Status of Habitat in the Mary Catchment D-2 D.2 Critical Habitat Requirements D-2 D.3 Extent of Habitat in the Project Area D-2 D.4 Habitat Suitability Criteria D-3 D.5 Calculating Residual Habitat Impact D-4 D.6 Required Value of the Rehabilitation Package D-4 D.7 Configuration of Habitat Restoration Works for the Giant Barred Frog D-5 Appendix E Habitat Assessment and Offset Metrics, Queensland Lungfish E-1 E.1 Critical Habitat Requirements E-2 E.2 Extent of Habitat in the Project Area E-2 E.3 Habitat Suitability Criteria E-2 E.4 Extent of Habitat in the Project Area E-3 E.5 Calculating Residual Habitat Impact E-4 E.6 Residual Habitat Impact E-4 E.7 Required Value of the Rehabilitation Package E-5 Appendix F Literature Review, Buffer Widths F-1 F.1 Introduction F-2 F.2 Sediment removal and erosion control F-2 F.3 Nutrient Pollutants F-2 F.4 Organic Pollutants F-3 F.5 Terrestrial Biodiversity F-4 F.6 Aquatic Biodiversity F-5 F.7 Buffer Vegetation Type F-5 F.8 Functionally Important Plant Species in the Mary Catchment F-6

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page iii

Appendix G Site Restoration Planning Process G-1 G.1 Content of Restoration Management Plans G-2 G.1.1 Identification and Protection of Existing Vegetation G-2 G.1.2 Establishment of off-stream watering points G-3 G.1.3 Weed Management G-3 G.1.4 Bank Stabilisation G-3 G.1.5 Assisted Natural Regeneration G-4 G.1.6 Revegetation G-4 G.1.7 Assessment of resilience G-14 Appendix H Species Lists Relevant Ecosystems H-1 H.1 Species Recorded from RE 12.3.1 in the Mary Valley H-2 H.2 Species Recorded from RE 12.3.7 in the Mary Valley H-6 H.3 Species Recorded from RE 12.3.11 in the Mary Valley H-9 Appendix I Worked example of revegetation condition assessment I-1 Appendix J Attributes to be measured at long-term revegetation monitoring sites J-1

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page iv

TABLES

Table 1-1 Scientific Advisers 1-2 Table 1-2 - CSIRO Expert Peer Review Panel 1-4 Table 2-1 Restoration Targets, by species 2-6 Table 2-2 Proposed Restoration Effort 2-7 Table 4-1 Riparian Rehabilitation Priorities 4-1 Table 5-1 In-stream Rehabilitation Priorities 5-1 Table 5-2 Key Habitat Attributes to be Monitored for Aquatic Species 5-4 Table 6-1 Short term performance targets for rehabilitation 6-2 Table 7-1 HRP Outcomes under high-case, expected and low-case scenarios 7-4 Table 8-1 Expected Uptake of Restoration Areas by four NES species 8-1 Table 9-1 Criteria for assessing the condition of young revegetated sites, before canopy closure 9-3 Table 9-2 Criteria for assessing the condition of established sites (modified from Kanowski et al 2008b) 9-4

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page v

FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Scientific Advisers 1-3 Figure 1-2 CSIRO Expert Peer Review Panel 1-5 Figure 2-1 Planned Restoration Investigation Areas 2-8 Figure 4-1 Restoration Investigation Areas, Kandanga Creek and Blue Creek 4-4 Figure 4-2 Restoration Investigation Areas, Yabba Creek and Coonoon Gibber Creek 4-5 Figure 4-3 Restoration Investigation Areas, Skyring Creek and Middle Creek 4-6 Figure 4-4 Restoration Investigation Areas, Happy Jack Creek 4-7 Figure 4-5 Restoration Investigation Areas, Belli Creek and Blackfellow Creek 4-8 Figure 4-6 Restoration Investigation Areas, Mary River 4-9 Figure 7-1 Implementation timeline for HRP 7-1 Figure 7-2 Conceptual Catchment Condition 7-3 Figure 9-1 Monitoring of biodiversity outcomes on revegetation projects (Kanowski et al, 2008) 9-1 Figure 9-2 Site layout for monitoring/establishing benchmarks for forest structure (Kanowski et al 2008) 9-5 Figure 9-3 Variation to standard site layout (Kanowski et al 2008) 9-6 Figure A-10-1 Severe Bank erosion on the Mary River 2 Figure A-10-2 Existing sand extraction in close proximity to dam wall site 2

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Since the lodgement of the Supplementary Report in August 2008 to the Coordinator-General (CG), subsequent information requests have been received from CG and the Commonwealth Government Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA). Furthermore, the DEWHA commissioned separately a review of the following aspects:

• Hydrological modelling methods and approach; • Matters Of National Environmental Significance (NES) with particular focus on: - Mary River Turtle (Elusor macrurus); - Mary River Cod (Maccullochella peelii mariensis); - Queensland Lungfish (Neoceratodus forsteri); and - Giant Barred Frog (Mixophyes iteratus), which led to the preparation of the Reviewer Reports.

Upon review of the information requests and the Reviewers Reports, it was apparent that further detail regarding the proposed mitigation measures with regard to the four NES species would assist the understanding and assessment of the Project. This Habitat Restoration Plan (HRP) presents Queensland Water Infrastructure Pty Ltd's (QWI) planned approach to the rehabilitation and restoration of habitat for the four NES species.

Scientific Advisers Furthermore, QWI has engaged a team of highly experienced Scientific Advisers to review and provide advice on each of the four NES species (refer Table A). This HRP approach has been endorsed by the Scientific Advisers as a robust and comprehensive approach to the mitigation of Project impacts, and has been designed to ensure the long-term viability of each of the species of NES.

Table A Scientific Advisers Personnel University / Association Expertise Emeritus Professor University of Queensland Queensland Lungfish, Mary River Cod Gordon Grigg Professor Craig Franklin University of Queensland Mary River Turtle

Associate Professor Griffith University Giant Barred Frog Jean-Marc Hero

In addition to the Scientific Advisers listed above, Dr. Peter Jackson undertook a detailed review of the Mary River Cod Research and Recovery Plan (Environment Australia, 2000) of which he was a co-author. Dr Jackson has over 35 years of experience as a fish ecologist and is the chairman of the Mary River Cod Recovery Team. Dr. Jackson’s review significantly informed the development of the Proponent’s mitigation measures and addressed other key issues such as research requirements, relating to the Mary River Cod.

Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) To lend further weight to the level of scientific review, QWI consulted with the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) to conduct an independent, overall review of

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page vii

the approach taken to the proposed mitigation measures, in particular this HRP and associated implementation plan. The CSIRO review team is presented in Table B.

Table B - CSIRO Review Panel Personnel Affiliations Title Dr Tom Hatton CSIRO Director, Water for a Healthy Country Flagship Scott Keyworth CSIRO Project Director David Ellis CSIRO Business Manager for CSIRO Land and Water Professor Arthur Georges CSIRO – University of Canberra Professor in Applied Ecology Dr Craig Miller CSIRO Senior Research Scientist - CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems Dr Fredrieke Kroon CSIRO Senior Research Scientist - CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems Frank Lemckert CSIRO – NSW DPI Senior Research Scientist

Status of the Mary River Catchment The Scientific Advisers, although commenting independently, all noted that the Mary River catchment has historically experienced significant degradation since European settlement, and does not represent a pristine environment. Indeed, the four NES species of particular interest have made their way onto the threatened species list at least partly because of habitat degradation.

The Scientific Advisers also all agree that a number of historic and current threatening processes have resulted in the loss, fragmentation and degradation of habitat for the Giant Barred Frog, Mary River Turtle, Mary River Cod and Queensland Lungfish. Furthermore, the general trend observed or inferred for each of these species is one of decline, strongly associated with a continuing reduction in the extent and quality of habitat within the catchment. These threatening processes are ongoing and include:

• Destruction of riparian habitat from clearing for agriculture and grazing, roads and other development; • Intense cattle access to riparian areas; • Barriers to movement; • Stream bank erosion; • Increased run-off; • Sediment and nutrient loading; • Weed invasion; • Predation by exotic fish, and feral and domestic animals; and • Increased water pollution.

The extent of impact associated with these ongoing threatening processes is that more than 85% of the land within the Study area has been cleared for grazing and agriculture leaving narrow disconnected remnants of riparian vegetation along the Mary River and its tributaries (EIS, 2007).

The Scientific Advisers also all agreed and conclude that without the elimination and/ or active management of current threatening processes, these populations may continue to decline in the Mary River catchment.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page viii

Furthermore, all concluded that the Project will provide a unique opportunity to implement a concerted and rigorous set of measures that will result in the restoration and improvement of habitat, and concurrently, provide a significant increase in knowledge on each of the four NES species of particular interest. Through both Academic and Applied Research proposed though the Freshwater Species Conservation Centre (FSCC), and the implementation of the HRP and other mitigation measures, the future of the species of NES is more than likely to improve with the Project than if they remain under the status quo in the catchment.

HRP Approach This HRP presents the intended approach to habitat restoration (including protection) works and includes a strategy for riparian restoration and in-stream habitat restoration as well as a long-term monitoring plan. The identification of suitable areas available for rehabilitation towards the target ecosystem types was undertaken as part of development of this HRP. Restoration under this HRP can be accommodated within much of QWI’s extensive landholdings (QWI owns or has reached agreement for the purchase of more than 85% of land required for the Project).

The Project creates a unique opportunity to contribute to the improvement of the environmental condition of the catchment and in-stream health. One of the most critical issues relating to the successful outcome of this HRP is the element of scale that is made possible by the amount of land in the Restoration Investigation Area under QWI management. This means that this HRP can be implemented in a strategically optimal way, allowing large scale implementation of actions that have immediate benefit, and maximising the success rate of restoration.

This element of scale is not possible in any other part of the catchment and negates the scale risk that has compromised restoration attempts in this catchment and other catchments to date.

QWI owns or has reached agreement to purchase several hundred properties within the Project area with frontage to the Mary River or its tributaries within the pre-clearing (EPA Mapping database 2009) extent of alluvial ecosystems. Although not all of these properties will be available or suitable for restoration works, depending on tenure, existing and proposed land use and condition, a substantial proportion of these properties are available for the purpose of restoration.

The planned Restoration Investigation Areas are located wholly within the existing Land Purchase Boundary, published in late 2006. The final Restoration Investigation Areas will reflect any conditions imposed by the Coordinator General and the Federal Government upon approval of the Project. QWI will seek to continue the purchase of land by voluntary agreement for restoration, where this is not possible compulsory land acquisition powers such as those available to the Coordinator General may be required. Some lease conditions on land owned by QWI may also require variation.

An extensive literature review and discussion with the Scientific Advisers determined that buffer widths of between 30m and 60m from the stream will meet the multiple objectives of this HRP. A framework for prioritisation of restoration works within the available land area has also been prepared and used to identify the location of restoration investigation areas (refer Figure 4-1 to Figure 4-6). In order to determine restoration benchmarks (or targets) for the Project, an assessment of areas (in hectares of riparian vegetation) of vegetation lost, and lengths of stream modified was conducted. The loss of terrestrial habitats for the Giant Barred Frog can be readily quantified, however, an estimate of the loss of habitat for aquatic species is more complicated. As the proposed impoundment will actually provide habitat suitable (for some stages of the lifecycle) for the four NES species, calculations of habitat loss for aquatic species actually represents a very conservative scenario (i.e. the impoundment provides no suitable habitat). Consequently, the

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page ix

restoration benchmark for aquatic species is disproportionate to the level of habitat loss or modification which would result from construction activities associated with the Project. Through a rigorous review of land availability and habitat suitability, QWI has committed to offsetting a greater area of riparian vegetation than that set by the benchmark, as can be seen in below.

Table C Planned Targeted Restoration Areas Species Group Maximum RHI Restoration benchmark Planned targeted restoration area (QWI Commitment) Kilometres Hectares of Kilometres Hectares of Hectares of associated of in-stream associated of in-stream associated riparian vegetation Habitat riparian Habitat riparian vegetation vegetation Aquatic Mary River Turtle 34.8 70.3 52.2 105.45 120 Mary River Cod Queensland Lungfish Terrestrial Giant Barred Frog N/A 116.6 N/A 174.9 190 TOTAL 34.8 186.9 52.2 280.35 310

The implementation of this HRP will result in the restoration of approximately 310 ha of riparian vegetation which will ultimately improve ecosystem function and landscape connectivity, and increase the extent of suitable habitat for the four NES species. Approximately 52.2 km of stream has been identified as a focal area for restoration of in-stream aquatic habitats. Baseline assessments will be completed in these areas to determine the potential benefit of in-stream restoration works. From these assessments, a number of priority reaches will be identified for treatment.

This HRP will be supported by a suite of land management initiatives including implementation of extensive weed and vertebrate pest control programs, fencing and protection of existing remnant vegetation.

Also, the Target Restoration Area is additional to, and complements the offset obligations for the Project established by the Vegetation Management Act 1999 and associated policies. The Vegetation Management Offset (VMO) for the Project has been identified in the Supplementary Report as being approximately 500 ha. The final offset requirements and strategy will be finalised with the CG/DERM to ensure compliance with the relevant legislative requirements, policies and guidelines.

QWI aims to establish approximately 2,000 ha of commercial-eucalypt plantation including approximately 500 ha of a permanent mixed species planting and is currently assessing expressions of interests from plantation operators. The VMO together with the plantation will provide vegetation with habitat and biodiversity value. Where practical, this planting will be situated adjacent to the Target Restoration Area to provide connectivity between a range of ecosystems.

As endorsed by the Scientific Advisers and the CSIRO, the land management initiatives are a critical component of this HRP, and the implementation in the initial stages of the rehabilitation process is vital to the success of the overall program.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page x

It is intended that reach-scale in-stream habitat restoration plans will be developed for the lower reaches of tributaries (and the confluence with the impoundment). The in-stream habitat restoration strategy focuses on the restoration of in-stream habitat complexity through the re-introduction of wood to the system. The objective of the in-stream rehabilitation work is to maximise habitat complexity, geomorphic complexity and improve channel stability. These outcomes will result in a direct benefit to the Mary River Turtle, Mary River Cod and Queensland Lungfish. The need for in- stream restoration works will be assessed on a reach by reach basis. It is likely that some reaches within Priority Restoration Areas will require minimal intervention.

The riparian restoration strategy focuses on protection and restoration of riparian vegetation to the benefit of the four NES species. The riparian restoration works will include revegetation of areas of degraded riparian vegetation and increase of the riparian buffers, exclusion of stock, staged revegetation and weed control. These outcomes will result in a direct benefit to the Giant Barred Frog.

A framework has also been developed for monitoring riparian and in-stream restoration works. The riparian restoration monitoring methodology considers two implementation timeframes; the immediate (between commencement of restoration works and operation of the Project) and the longer term. The riparian revegetation works will be monitored using the framework developed for revegetation monitoring developed by the former Rainforest CRC (now the Commonwealth Environment Research Facilities – Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility). A Project specific monitoring approach has been developed for the purpose of tracking restoration works.

As supported by the Scientific Advisers, restoration activities at this scale will ultimately result in a substantial benefit to the four NES species which occur in the catchment, as the “do nothing” scenario is likely to continue the decline of the species.

Restoration works will provide immediate benefit and will commence upon approval of the Project. QWI has existing Memoranda of Understanding with Greening Australia, and Queensland Water and Land Carers Inc (QWaLC). In particular, Greening Australia has indicated that it is able to provide immediate on-ground resources to commence some of this HRP activity.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page xi

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Purpose of the Habitat Restoration Plan This Habitat Restoration Plan (HRP) has been prepared in response to a request from the Queensland Coordinator-General (CG), for further information in relation to proposed mitigation measures presented within the Traveston Crossing Dam Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Supplementary Report and subsequent information requests. The relevant mitigation measures relate to the rehabilitation of habitat for listed threatened species, i.e. the Queensland Lungfish (Neoceratodus forsteri), Mary River Cod (Maccullochella peelii mariensis), Mary River Turtle (Elusor macrurus) and Giant Barred Frog (Mixophyes iteratus) (collectively referred to as the ‘four NES species’). The four NES species are listed as Threatened Species under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) (EPBC Act).

The CG has requested the identification of specific areas that present opportunities for protection and recovery of native species given existing threatening processes within the highly-disturbed catchment and the additional potential impacts associated with the Project. The specific information requested by the CG includes:

• Performance criteria options; • Stream and adjacent riparian habitat locations to be rehabilitated and protected; • Quantified land area and locations to be incorporated in new refuge reserves; • Management measures to be applied to the relevant land and watercourses; • Timeframes for development of habitat; • Likely impact of rehabilitation and offset measures proposed including on matters of National Environmental Significance; and • Proposed land use controls.

This HRP presents the intended approach to habitat protection, rehabilitation and restoration activities and establishes a framework for managing restoration works over the longer term.

This HRP is complementary to the large number of commitments proposed in the EIS and Supplementary Report, which will also aid the recovery of the four NES species, such as optimising flow regimes, developing captive husbandry techniques and implementing research programs. The outcomes of actions proposed in this HRP will provide a sound basis for long-term habitat restoration.

In order to address the specific concerns of the CG, this HRP provides:

• An overview of the current status of each of the four NES species and associated habitat; • Identification of areas of habitat modified or impacted by the Project; • Identification of land available for rehabilitation; • A strategy for restoring riparian vegetation; • A strategy for restoring in-stream habitat; • A monitoring methodology for revegetation sites and in-stream habitat complexity; and • Performance indicators and targets that will be used to demonstrate net conservation benefit.

1.2 HRP Process To provide specialist scientific input, QWI engaged a team of highly experienced Scientific Advisers to review and provide advice on each of the four NES species (refer Table 1-1), including Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 1-1

this HRP. This HRP has been endorsed by the Scientific Advisers as a robust and comprehensive approach to the mitigation of Project impacts, and has been designed to ensure the long-term viability of the species.

Table 1-1 Scientific Advisers Personnel University / Association Expertise Emeritus Professor University of Queensland Queensland Lungfish, Mary River Cod Gordon Grigg Professor Craig Franklin University of Queensland Mary River Turtle

Associate Professor Griffith University Giant Barred Frog Jean-Marc Hero

In addition to the Scientific Advisers listed above, Dr. Peter Jackson undertook a detailed review of the Mary River Cod Research and Recovery Plan (Environment Australia, 2000) of which he was a co-author. Dr Jackson has over 35 years of experience as a fish ecologist and is the chairman of the Mary River Cod Recovery Team. Dr. Jackson’s review significantly informed the development of the Proponent’s mitigation measures and addressed other key issues such as research requirements, relating to the Mary River Cod.

A short biography for each Scientific Advisor is presented in Figure 1-1 and a comprehensive curriculum vitae for each Adviser is provided in Appendix G of the Implementation Framework.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 1-2

FIGURE 1-1

EMERITUS PROFESSOR PROFESSOR GORDON GRIGG CRAIG FRANKLIN

• Gordon Grigg is Emeritus Professor of Zoology at the • Professor Craig Franklin is an Australian Professorial University of Queensland. Fellow and Professor in Zoology at The University of • He has over 35 years of professional experience Queensland. as a researcher and lecturer on both a national and • Craig is one of the most published scientists in the area international scale and has authored, co-authored and of freshwater turtles in Australia and has authored/ co- edited over 170 scientific publications, including several authored 14 publications on the physiology of Australian books and more than 30 semi-popular articles. freshwater turtles, with particular focus on bimodal • Professor Grigg has been researching the Queensland respiring species including Elusor macrurus, Elseya Lungfish since the early 1960s, and has produced more albagula, Rheodytes leukops and Emydura macquarii. than 10 publications on the biology and physiology of the • He has published over a 140 scientific articles, including species. papers in the prestigious journals Science and Nature. • Gordon is considered one of Australia’s pre-eminent zoologists and field biologists and is highly respected for his views on the Queensland Lungfish.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR JEAN-MARC HERO

• Jean-Marc Hero is an Associate Professor at the School of Environment at Griffith University. • He has over 18 years experience in research and teaching, with a specific focus on conservation biology of amphibians and reptiles. • He is considered one of Australia’s leading scientists in relation to amphibian biology and species conservation, with particular experience with the Giant Barred Frog. • Marc has authored, co-authored and refereed over 100 scientific publications, including book chapters and journal articles. • Marc is Secretary General of the World Congress of Herpetology (2008-2012)

To lend further weight to the level of scientific review, QWI consulted with the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) to conduct an independent, overall review of the approach taken for the proposed mitigation measures, in particular this HRP, and associated Implementation Framework (refer Table 1-2). A short biography of each member of the CSIRO Expert Peer Review Panel is presented in Figure 1-2. The CSIRO has endorsed the process and in regard to the proposed mitigation measures provided the following comment:

“In particular, we note that the process that QWI has adopted in preparation of the Response reflects its commitment to ensure that the best available scientific advice is utilised to inform the development of the suite of mitigating measures proposed in the document. CSIRO considers that the multiple approaches taken to mitigation of impact is a strength of the proposal.

We also note QWl's commitment to adopting a "net positive environmental gain" as opposed to a "no net loss" approach (which has been seen in other water resource developments), is consistent with QWI's stated overall project objective of delivering sustainable infrastructure development.”

The letter of review provided by the CSIRO is attached as Appendix F of the Implementation Framework.

Table 1-2 - CSIRO Expert Peer Review Panel Personnel Affiliations Title Dr Tom Hatton CSIRO Director, Water for a Healthy Country Flagship Scott Keyworth CSIRO Project Director David Ellis CSIRO Business Manager for CSIRO Land and Water Professor Arthur Georges CSIRO – University of Canberra Professor in Applied Ecology Dr Craig Miller CSIRO Senior Research Scientist - CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems Dr Fredrieke Kroon CSIRO Senior Research Scientist - CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems Frank Lemckert CSIRO – NSW DPI Senior Research Scientist

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 1-4

FIGURE 1-2

MR SCOTT KEYWORTH CSIRO, Manager, Research Adoption, Water for a Healthy Country Flagship Scott Keyworth is currently Manager, Research Adoption, with the Water for a Healthy Country Flagship. PROJECT

DIRECTOR In this role, he works with researchers and Flagship partners to facilitate the translation of research outcomes into products and actions to enhance adoption by industry, government and the community. He is also a Fellow of Australian Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology and a Member of Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society. Scott was awarded the River Murray Medal by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission in recognition of services to the River Murray.

MR DAVID ELLIS CSIRO Land and Water David is a Business Manager with CSIRO Land and Water, and the Water for a Healthy Country Flagship. David

PROJECT was responsible for ensuring effective communication between the Client and individual CSIRO staff and sub-

MANAGER contractors contributing to this review. David has 14 years experience as a project manager, with his most significant achievement being the timely completion of the $4M Adelaide Coastal Waters Study for the South Australian Environment Protection Authority. David’s key role in this consulting project is to ensure timely delivery, including via sub-contract with the University of Canberra and the NSW Department of Primary Industries.

PROFESSOR ARTHUR GEORGES Professor in Applied Ecology, University of Canberra Professor Georges has more than 30 years professional experience as an ecologist and researcher/lecturer. He has TURTLES international, national and industry experience with a particular focus on freshwater turtle conservation. Professor Georges joined the University of Canberra in 1983 and has published extensively as evident in his CV.

DR FREDRIEKE KROON FISH Senior Research Scientist, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Atherton Laboratory Queensland Fredrieke has over 20 years experience in working in freshwater, coastal and marine (tropical and temperate) ecosystems. Her main research interests lie in fauna behaviour (including behavioural ecology), ecology and reproductive endocrinology, with specific interests in effects of environmental factors on ecology, behaviour and reproduction of animals in general, and fishes in particular. Most recently, Fredrieke has been focusing on coastal floodplain rehabilitation in eastern Australia, using a collaborative and integrated approach to both land management and aquatic/marine health, to improve water quality, aquatic/marine biodiversity and fisheries production.

DR CRAIG MILLER Senior Research Scientist, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, St Lucia, Queensland Craig has 20 years experience working in conservation and sustainable natural resource management science, including river and riparian restoration, in New Zealand and Australia. He has been involved in reviewing Environmental Impact Assessments associated with the mining and indigenous logging, and in contributing to EIAs ECOLOGICAL and sustainable management practices in a number of different environments. He has recently contributed to the development of sustainability principles for QWI, associated with the Traveston Dam. CONSIDERATIONS

MR FRANCIS LEMCKERT Senior Research Scientist, Forest Research Centre, Department of Primary Industries, Beercroft NSW FROGS Frank is a conservation ecologist who has been researching the effects of forestry related operations on fauna, particularly amphibians. This has included the use of multi-variate analyses of data to identify possible relationships between habitat and habitat disturbances and the presence and abundance of species. He has particular experience in environmental impact assessments, relating basic ecology of endangered species to aid in their protection. Frank is considered one of Australia’s leading researchers familiar with the Giant Barred Frog and its habitat requirements in eastern Australia.

The Scientific Advisers, although commenting independently, all noted that the Mary River catchment has historically experienced significant degradation since European settlement, and does not represent a pristine environment. Indeed, the four NES species of particular interest have made their way onto the threatened species list at least partly because of habitat degradation.

The Scientific Advisers also all agree that a number of historic and current threatening processes have resulted in the loss, fragmentation and degradation of habitat for the Giant Barred Frog, Mary River Turtle, Mary River Cod and Queensland Lungfish. Furthermore, the general trend observed or inferred for each of these species is one of decline, strongly associated with a continuing reduction in the extent and quality of habitat within the catchment. These threatening processes are ongoing and include:

• Destruction of riparian habitat from clearing for agriculture and grazing, roads and other development; • Intense cattle access to riparian areas; • Barriers to movement; • Stream bank erosion; • Increased run-off; • Sediment and nutrient loading; • Weed invasion; • Predation by exotic fish, and feral and domestic animals; and • Increased water pollution.

The extent of impact associated with these ongoing threatening processes is that more than 85% of the land within the Study area has been cleared for grazing and agriculture leaving narrow disconnected remnants of riparian vegetation along the Mary River and its tributaries (EIS, 2007).

The Project will have a relatively minor and short term contribution to riparian habitat loss when viewed at this scale. To put this loss in context, the Project will inundate an area of 3039 ha, representing just 0.31% of the catchment area and 4% of the total length of watercourse in the catchment.

The Scientific Advisers also all agreed and conclude that without the elimination and/ or active management of current threatening processes, these populations may continue to decline in the Mary River catchment.

Furthermore, all concluded that the Project will provide a unique opportunity to implement a concerted and rigorous set of measures that will result in the restoration and improvement of habitat, and concurrently, provide a significant increase in knowledge on each of the four NES species of particular interest. Through both Academic and Applied Research proposed though the Freshwater Species Conservation Centre (FSCC), and the implementation of this HRP and other mitigation measures, the future of the four NES species is more than likely to improve with the Project than if they remain under the status quo in the catchment.

1.3 Rationale This HRP presents the intended approach to habitat restoration works and includes a strategy for riparian restoration and in-stream habitat restoration as well as a long-term monitoring plan. An assessment of the availability of suitable areas for rehabilitation towards the target ecosystem types was undertaken as part of development of this HRP.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 1-6

A range of studies have been conducted to assess and prioritise the restoration potential across the Mary River catchment. The Mary River and Tributaries Rehabilitation Plan (Implementation Edition, Stockwell, 2001) undertaken on behalf of the Mary River Catchment Coordinating Committee prioritised actions in all reaches of the Mary River and all major tributaries, similarly to Rutherford et. al.(2000). This plan prioritised the reaches for rehabilitation potential and gave the highest priority to those already in good condition; noting that these should be protected. Conversely, the lowest priority for restoration was determined to be those reaches in poor condition. The mainstream Mary River was attributed the lowest priority while tributaries were identified as having the highest potential for restoration. This approach is affirmed by the Scientific Advisers.

There are undoubtedly areas of better or poorer habitat within any watercourse and what constitutes good habitat varies from species to species. The tributaries of the Mary River are known habitat for the four NES species, with these tributaries being particularly vital for recruitment for the Mary River cod and the Giant Barred Frog. This is consistent with the research findings of the EIS.

The State of the Estuarine Environment Report 2008 by the Burnett Mary Regional Group (BMRG) has found that the Mary River estuary is in a fair condition and unless management actions are taken to reduce this high risk then the condition of the estuary will at best remain in this state of fair health or may deteriorate in the future. The Proponent’s commitment to its own mitigation measures as well as funding the BMRG for $3.575 million to undertake a program of works to ensure the quality of the Mary River and ongoing catchment management.

It is for these reasons it has been concluded that a combination of riparian planting and in-stream habitat restoration along the tributaries will result in greater benefit to habitat value for the four NES species compared to riparian planting along the main channel. Therefore, this HRP focuses on the restoration of riparian vegetation and in-stream habitat along the tributaries in proximity with the Project area and confluence of tributaries with the lake created by the Project.

In relation to the main channel of the Mary River downstream of the Project, the impact assessment process and review by the Scientific Advisers identified the most effective mitigation measure for downstream of the dam wall is an optimised environmental flow regime, resulting in:

• Improvement in water quality; • Improvement in sediment load; • Improved hydrological connectivity; and • Seasonal flows.

Modelling has been conducted taking into consideration the downstream effects of the Project in regard to the flow regime and geomorphic processes. Under an optimised scenario (Secondary Optimisation), it was demonstrated that seasonal flows, water quality and, connectivity for fish movement from the dam wall (modelled from Dagun Pocket, 3 km downstream) can be maintained and improved during the critical JASON months (including during July to November).

TARGET RESTORATION AREA

In determining the appropriate location and extent of the habitat restoration works, QWI has adopted a scientifically derived, proportionate mitigation response. This HRP identifies the Target Restoration Area in the proximity of the Project area, namely the upper reaches of the impoundment including the tributaries.

The Target Restoration Area is where the most beneficial mitigation can be implemented.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 1-7

QWI owns or has reached agreement to purchase 85% of land required for the Project. QWI's landholdings include several hundred properties with frontage to the Mary River or its tributaries within the pre-clearing (EPA Mapping database 2009) extent of alluvial ecosystems. Restoration under this HRP can be accommodated within much of QWI’s extensive landholdings. A substantial proportion of the riparian areas of these properties is available for the purpose of restoration.

The Target Restoration Area responds to current threats to key habitat attributes of the four NES species, including the following:

• Emergent logs and logs jams are understood to be important elements of the microhabitat of the Mary River Turtle. The removal of riparian trees has reduced, and continues to reduce, the recruitment of such logs into the in-stream environment. Therefore, targeted efforts to re-instate riparian vegetation communities will directly benefit the Mary River Turtle; • Removal of riparian vegetation which provides shade and continued supply of in-stream habitat (such as logs and other natural debris creating snags) is considered a key threat to the Mary River cod. Targeted restoration of riparian zones in tributaries will therefore benefit the Mary River cod; • Increased protection and enhancement of Giant Barred Frog habitat on private land through community based conservation programs targeting riparian environments is an action proposed in the Commonwealth Government’s Recovery Plan for the Giant Barred Frog. Riparian revegetation has the potential to significantly increase the availability of habitat for this species, the resilience of that habitat and connectivity between often isolated patches. Targeted restoration of riparian zones in tributaries will therefore benefit the Giant Barred Frog; and • Widespread clearing of riparian vegetation is recognised as a threat to the lifecycle of the Queensland Lungfish, because Lungfish utilise terrestrial plants that overhang the water for shelter or spawning. Clearing also increases the damage caused by floods and removes cover that Lungfish use to prevent themselves from being displaced by fast-flowing floodwater (Kind, 2002). Targeted restoration of riparian zones will therefore benefit the Queensland Lungfish.

This HRP sets out the process to achieve restoration outcomes for the four NES species as one element of a multi tiered mitigation approach to be delivered under the Implementation Framework, in conjunction with:

• Optimising environmental flows under the Water Resource Planning process; • Improving knowledge of the four NES species through research to be conducted by the Freshwater Species Conservation Centre; • Environmental management during construction under the Construction Environment Management Plan; and • Other measures including ongoing land management controls in respect of QWI's landholdings.

1.4 Content of this HRP This HRP provides a framework for restoration (including protection) activities and monitoring of those activities, presented in a number of discrete sections, as follows:

• Section 2 reviews the current status of the four NES species at the catchment scale with reference to population numbers and trends (where appropriate); • Section 3 provides an assessment of the availability of suitable land for restoration works. These areas will be the focus of early restoration works; • Section 4 presents the riparian restoration strategy, including restoration principles, prioritisation framework and priority restoration areas;

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 1-8

• Section 5 presents the intended approach to in-stream habitat restoration, restoration principles, prioritisation framework and priority restoration areas as they relate to in-stream habitats; • Section 6 discusses the intended approach to monitoring in both the short term (for riparian restoration) and longer term for riparian and in-stream habitat restoration; and • Section 7 presents Key Performance Indicators which will be used to track the trajectory trend of restored sites towards target conditions.

This HRP is supported by several technical appendices which relate to the strategies. The appendices also provide detail in regard to the development of an “offset metric” for the Project related impacts on the four NES species.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 1-9

2. DETERMINING RESTORATION TARGETS

2.1 Introduction The following sections review the existing offset policy framework operating in Queensland and discuss the offset metrics associated with each policy. The process used to develop an offset metric for each of the four NES species is also described.

There is an expectation (established by State and Federal Biodiversity and Environmental Offset Policies) that a greater area of habitat will be restored than that lost or modified as a result of the Project. However, limited guidance is provided by current offset policies for the calculation of offset obligations for impacts on threatened species and their habitats.

The threatened species and general biodiversity values considered in this HRP are also supplemented by the planned Vegetation Management Offset, details of which were provided in the EIS, Supplementary Report and subsequent information requests for the Project (refer also Section 2.4 of this HRP).

2.2 Offset Metrics – Existing Policy The following sections provide a brief discussion of the offset metrics contained in the:

• NRW Policy for Vegetation Management Offsets; • Offsets for Nett Benefits to Koalas and Koala Habitat; and • Draft Biodiversity Offset Policy.

There are also two additional offset policies in operation, discussed below, which do not provide any guidance on the use of offset metrics for impacts on threatened species and their habitats:

• The Queensland Government Environmental Offsets Policy (QGEOP) is based on seven policy principles that direct the way offsets must be used to contribute to ESD. These principles must be followed when applying offsets, and used to prepare any new specific-issue offsets policies. As the QGEOP is intended as an overarching offset policy, it contains no specific metrics for the calculation of offset targets. • The Australian Government's Draft Environmental Offsets Policy identified eight principles for the use of environmental offsets under the EPBC Act. These eight principles are proposed to be used to assess any proposed environmental offsets to ensure consistency, transparency and equity under the EPBC Act. The Draft Environmental Offsets Policy, which is yet to be formally adopted, contains no metrics for calculating offset targets.

2.2.1 Qld NRW Policy for Vegetation Management Offsets The Queensland NRW Policy for Vegetation Management Offsets (2007) contains a requirement to maintain the current extent of Essential Habitat for species listed as Endangered, Vulnerable or Rare under the Nature Conservation Act 1992.

Essential habitat, which is vegetation in which a species that is endangered, vulnerable, rare or near threatened has been known to occur, is mapped by the DERM. To fulfil its obligation under the Vegetation Management Act 1999 to regulate vegetation clearing in such a way as to prevent the loss of biodiversity, NRW uses these essential habitat maps to help determine the habitat status of the vegetation when assessing applications to clear.

The NRW Policy includes a metric for calculating the offset requirement for the Essential Habitat of EVR listed species. Where the offset is to be provided in the same bioregion, the offset multiplier

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 2-1

adopted by NRW under this Policy is fixed at 1:1.5 on the basis the offset is provided in the same subregion.

2.2.2 Qld Offsets for Net Benefits to Koalas and Koala Habitat This policy provides a framework and direction for the use of environmental offsets to provide a net benefit for Koala conservation where unavoidable development occurs in high quality Koala habitat in SEQ, as required by the Nature Conservation (Koala) Conservation Plan 2006 (EPA, 2006).

This policy applies to specific developments in areas mapped as Koala Conservation Area or Koala Sustainability Area where it is not a development commitment. The policy focuses on unavoidable impacts of development proposals on the quantity, quality and connectivity of Koala habitat on a development site referred to as residual habitat impact (RHI). RHI is calculated based on the area of habitat to be impacted, the suitability of habitat and the duration of loss. High suitability habitat is given a weighting of 1.0, the medium suitability habitat is given a weighting of 0.7 while low suitability habitat is given a weighting of 0.4.

Any loss of vegetation that will be re-vegetated within three years and provide equivalent habitat once re-grown, is considered a temporary loss and is given a duration weighting of 0.5. Areas cleared for more than three years are considered permanent losses and given a 1.0 loss multiplier. The policy does not require the provision of offsets for non-habitat based impacts such as vehicle related mortality. Any measure that reduces the impacts on Koala habitat will also reduce the RHI and therefore lessen the offset needed to provide a nett Koala conservation benefit, whether the measure is a requirement of development or not.

While preference is given to habitat based offsets, offsetting actions are not restricted to habitat based measures and may also consist of other actions such as projects to reduce vehicle mortality on Koalas. Both types of offsetting actions contribute towards meeting the required value of the offset package, though habitat based measures must constitute at least half of the value of the offset package.

The objective of the policy is that development which has an unavoidable impact on important Koala habitat requires a nett benefit large enough to ensure that it contributes significantly to the recovery of koalas in SEQ. The required value of the offset package is 1.5 times the RHI for high quality habitat offsets. High quality habitat offsets include the regeneration of cleared land in appropriate locations.

2.2.3 Qld Draft Biodiversity Offset Policy The Draft Biodiversity Offset Policy notification period for public comment has recently closed (March 2009). The Draft Policy is under consideration and is yet to be adopted.

The Draft Biodiversity Offset Policy proposes rules for biodiversity offsets that are appropriate in size and scope to meet the stated environmental outcome sought for each biodiversity value. To achieve the required positive outcomes, the proposed rules would require biodiversity offsets to be larger than the extent of the relevant impact.

The proposed rules express the amount of offset required as a ratio between the impact and offset. The ratios proposed in the Draft policy are chosen to reflect each value’s importance (e.g. larger offset required for endangered than for vulnerable species; largest ratios for national parks) and the DERM’s expectation of the ability of the offset to achieve the intended outcome (larger offset required for less desirable options).

For Endangered species the draft policy proposes an offset ratio of up to 1:4-1:5 depending on the configuration of the offset package, for Vulnerable species the offset ratio is proposed to be

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 2-2

1:2.5-1:3.5. Significantly, the Draft Biodiversity Offset Policy notes that for fauna species, direct offsets are preferred, but may be supplemented with indirect offsets:

• A direct offset could be securing existing habitat under threat OR rehabilitating and securing habitat for that fauna species; and • Indirect offsets must be permanent (e.g. not short term education campaign), and address impacted population.

Under the Draft Biodiversity Offset Policy it is possible to apply the target ratio to carrying capacity, rather than habitat area. Therefore, a combination of direct (habitat) offsets and indirect offsets (mitigation of threatening processes) which increase the carrying capacity of the system can acquit the offset obligation of the Project.

The Draft Policy does not apply to environmental offsets for impacts on the same biodiversity values which are already captured under other specific issue offset policies. For example, a project which is required to provide a vegetation offset in order to achieve compliance with the Vegetation Management Act 1999 will not be required to offset those same values under the Biodiversity Offset Policy.

The Qld NRW Draft Biodiversity Offset Policy makes no provision for the quality of habitat to be lost or modified. Nor does it consider the connectivity of habitat to be lost or modified. As a result, the only factor considered by the Draft Biodiversity Offset Policy is the quantity of habitat to be lost or modified. The following section describes the adopted policy approach most suited to the Project.

2.3 Offset Metrics Developed for the Project In the absence of a mandatory approach to calculating the offset ratio for impacts on threatened species, this HRP adopts and enhances the only species-specific offset policy currently operating in Queensland (i.e. Offsets for Net Benefits to Koalas and Koala Habitat, Qld Environmental Protection Agency, 2005) for the four NES species.

The offset metrics and general approach of the Koala Offset Policy are considered superior to the formulae contained in the Qld EPA Draft Biodiversity Offset Policy, and more ‘fit for purpose’ in the determination of offset targets for the Project. As identified above, the Qld NRW Draft Biodiversity Offset Policy makes no provision for the quality of habitat to be lost or modified. Nor does it consider the connectivity of habitat to be lost or modified. As a result, the only factor considered by the Draft Biodiversity Offset Policy is the quantity of habitat to be lost or modified.

On the contrary, the Koala Offset Policy allows for the quantification of habitat quality based on a range of habitat suitability criteria. As such, the ultimate offset requirement is proportionate to the quantity, quality and connectivity of habitat lost or modified. The Koala Offset Policy carries a degree of sophistication which allows a more realistic appraisal of impact, and consequently a more proportionate response in terms of offset obligations. The offset metrics from the Koala Offset Policy have been adopted with modification to suit the Project circumstances. The approach of weighting the quality of habitat lost prior to applying the offset multiplier has been adopted for this project and provides a basis for further calculations, including the determination of restoration targets.

The focus of the Koala policy is the impact on quantity, quality and connectivity of habitat – referred to as Residual Habitat Impact (RHI). The methodology developed for calculation of RHI for the Koala and subsequently the area of offset required for net conservation benefit has been modified specifically for the four NES species to assist in the calculation of offset targets in this Plan.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 2-3

For terrestrial species, the loss of habitat is readily quantified as an area measured in hectares. For aquatic species the situation is more complex and there are no publicly available guidelines for establishing acceptable estimates of loss.

The complexity of this issue in relation to the Project is compounded by the fact that the lake created by the Project will actually provide suitable habitat for all of the significant aquatic species considered in this HRP. Whilst the lake may not provide ideal breeding habitat for all of the aquatic species, it is likely to facilitate dispersal and foraging activities.

Despite these complexities, and to assist in establishing restoration priorities, an estimate of the RHI for aquatic species has been provided as length of in-stream habitat and associated riparian vegetation for the purpose of this HRP. As the proposed impoundment will actually provide habitat suitable (for some stages of the lifecycle) for the four NES species, calculations of habitat loss for aquatic species actually represents a very conservative scenario (i.e. assumes the impoundment provides no suitable habitat). Consequently, the restoration benchmark for aquatic species is disproportionate to the level of habitat loss or modification which would result from construction activities associated with the Project and provides a nett benefit.

Whilst the Koala Offset Policy contains provisions relating to timelag, no multiplier has been included in the formulae developed for this HRP. Whereas the Koala Offset Policy assigns a timelag multiplier of x2 for rehabilitated areas, the metrics applied in this HRP assign a timelag weighting of 1. As there will be no time-lag between the inundation of the impoundment, and the availability of habitat for the aquatic species (i.e., the tributaries and Mary River Channel already provide habitat), this is considered a reasonable and practical approach. In contrast, vegetation which provides suitable habitat for the koala needs to be well established before it is able to provide the necessary habitat attributes to support koala populations (e.g. trees of sufficient size to support its body weight and foliage consumption).

For the Giant Barred Frog, restoration effort will focus in existing patches of vegetation (both remnant and regrowth vegetation) rather than the rehabilitation of completely cleared lands. As such, a timelag multiplier of 1 has been assumed for the purpose of this HRP. Whilst it is understandable that a heavy timelag weighting is required for Koala habitat offsets (because the species requires trees of sufficient size to support its body weight and foliage consumption), the same assumptions do not apply to the Giant Barred Frog.

Stream lengths within the project area were categorised as being of either: high, medium or low quality habitat for the Mary River Turtle, Mary River Cod and Queensland Lungfish, based on the presence or absence of important habitat attributes for each species.

For the Mary River Turtle, areas considered to be of highest value were reaches of the Mary River containing known nest sites and areas 1km upstream or downstream of known nest sites. Areas of moderate suitability were reaches of the Mary River considered highly suitable or suitable for nesting (with a buffer of 1km upstream and downstream). All other reaches of the Mary River were considered in the category of low suitability for this species.

For the Mary River Cod, habitat suitability was ranked in accordance with the habitat assessment prepared for the Mary River (within the project area) by Hydrobiology (2007). In addition, the HRP ranked major tributaries based on the extent of vegetation cover, considered a reasonable surrogate for riparian habitat condition. This ensured that tributaries with riparian vegetation cover were included in estimates of high or moderate habitat suitability.

For Queensland Lungfish, reaches of the Mary River with macrophyte cover were considered representative of highest quality habitat. Reaches of Yabba and Kandanga Creeks which support

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 2-4

fringing riparian vegetation were also considered representative of high quality habitat. Again, the presence of riparian vegetation was considered a surrogate for riparian vegetation condition.

For all aquatic species, those stream reaches without unique habitat attributes known to be of importance to the particular species have not been considered in the calculation of offset targets. As such, only a proportion of the total stream length to be inundated is considered to have particular value to each species.

Since areas of high value to Mary River Turtle, Mary River Cod and Queensland Lungfish actually overlap (even though developed using quite different criteria), no attempt was made to identify reach segments which had particular value to only one species, and the loss estimates are not cumulative in nature.

Of the total combined stream length (all tributaries and the Mary River) of 95.4km, only a proportion of these systems are considered significant for each species. The offset metrics developed for the HRP intend to capture the most significant reaches and associated riparian vegetation and make provision for compensation for the values contained therein.

The process used to develop an “offset metric” for the four NES species are described in detail in Appendix B, Appendix C, Appendix D and Appendix E of this document.

2.4 Additional Offset Commitments This HRP will be supported by a suite of land management initiatives including implementation of extensive weed and vertebrate pest control programs, fencing and protection of existing remnant vegetation.

Also, the Target Restoration Area is additional to and complements the offset obligations for the Project established by the Vegetation Management Act 1999 and associated policies. The VMO for the Project has been identified in the Supplementary Report as being approximately 500 ha. The final offset requirements and strategy will be finalised with the CG/DERM to ensure compliance with the relevant legislative requirements, policies and guidelines.

QWI aims to develop approximately 2,000 ha of commercial-eucalypt plantation including approximately 500 ha of a permanent mixed species planting and is currently assessing expressions of interests from plantation owners. The VMO together with the plantation will provide vegetation with habitat and biodiversity value. Where possible, this planting will be situated adjacent to the Target Restoration Area to provide connectivity between a range of ecosystems.

2.5 Required Value of the Rehabilitation Package Based on the approach of determining RHI for each of the four NES species and applying a multiplication factor to account for risk, restoration targets have been determined for each species.

These targets are presented in Table 2-1 and given as kilometres of in-stream habitat or hectares of riparian vegetation for each species.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 2-5

Table 2-1 Restoration Targets, by species

Species RHI RHI Restoration target (km) (ha) (1.5 x RHI) Kilometres of in-stream Hectares of riparian habitat vegetation Mary River Turtle 26.46 11.45 39.69 17.175 Mary River Cod 34.8 70.3 52.2 105.45 Queensland Lungfish 23.54 35.62 35.31 53.43 Giant Barred Frog N/A 116.6 N/A 174.9

The habitat requirements of the four NES species overlap considerably. For example, any restoration works for the Queensland Lungfish will also benefit the Mary River Turtle and Mary River cod. As such, by their nature the targets are not cumulative. Therefore it is considered appropriate that the restoration target for in-stream habitat length and riparian vegetation is determined by the most heavily impacted aquatic species and that the target for riparian vegetation is determined by adopting the restoration target for the Giant Barred Frog.

The maximum RHI for stream length and hectares of riparian vegetation has been adopted as the basis for setting restoration targets for the two fauna groups: aquatic, which includes the Mary River Turtle, Mary River Cod, Queensland Lungfish; and terrestrial, namely the Giant Barred Frog. Using this approach, the RHI for the Mary River cod has been used as the basis for calculating RHI (and subsequently the restoration benchmark for aquatic species), whilst the RHI for the Giant Barred Frog has been used as the basis for determining the restoration benchmark for terrestrial species.

Restoration effort will be partitioned based on these broad groupings, with an aquatic focus in the area around Full Supply Level (FSL) of the storage, particularly the upper reaches, and a focus on the Giant Barred Frog upstream from FSL.

An offset metric was adopted to provide guidance in setting the restoration benchmarks for the Target Restoration Area for the Project. These targets are presented in Table 2-2 below. These benchmarks represent the accepted effort required to ensure consistency with currently accepted offset metrics. However, QWI intends to exceed these benchmarks by restoring habitat areas additional to those suggested by the restoration targets.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 2-6

Table 2-2 Proposed Restoration Effort

Species Group Maximum RHI Restoration benchmark Target Restoration Area (QWI commitment) Kilometres Hectares of Kilometres Hectares of Hectares of associated of in- associated of in- associated riparian vegetation stream riparian stream riparian Habitat vegetation Habitat vegetation Aquatic Mary River Turtle Mary River Cod 34.8 70.3 52.2 105.45 120 Queensland Lungfish Terrestrial Giant Barred Frog N/A 116.6 N/A 174.9 190

TOTAL 34.8 186.9 52.2 280.35 310

Through setting a restoration benchmark, QWI has been able to commit to a greater offset area through the availability of restoration areas within the Project area where QWI owns or has reached agreement to purchase more than 85% of landholdings required for the Project. The restoration targets for this HRP (as outlined in Table 2-2) are therefore:

• Restore riparian habitat and in-stream habitat complexity on approximately 52.2 km of stream length (for in-stream habitat restoration, this will be subject to an assessment of benefit, and identification of priority reaches) for the aquatic species Mary River Turtle, Mary River Cod and Queensland Lungfish. An area of approximately 120 ha of associated riparian vegetation will be restored on priority reaches for aquatic species. These areas are primarily located around the FSL of the impoundment and on the tributaries of the Mary River; and • Restore riparian vegetation types over an area of approximately 190 ha above FSL for the Giant Barred Frog. These areas are primarily located above FSL and on the tributaries of the Mary River.

Planned restoration investigation areas are shown below in Figure 2-1. For presentation purposes, priority restoration areas for the aquatic species have been grouped, whilst priority areas for the Giant Barred Frog are shown separately.

The Restoration Investigation Area (RIA) has sufficient land area to accommodate the Target Restoration Areas (TRA’s) (see Table 2-2). This approach provides flexibility when designing the restoration works. The following section outlines the approach to identify the TRA’s.

The planned Restoration Investigation Areas are located wholly within the existing Land Purchase Boundary, published in late 2006. The final Restoration Investigation Areas will reflect any conditions imposed by the Coordinator General and the Federal Government upon approval of the Project. QWI will seek to continue the purchase of land by voluntary agreement for restoration, where this is not possible compulsory land acquisition powers such as those available to the Coordinator General may be required. Some lease conditions on land owned by QWI may also require variation.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 2-7

RD BRUCE KYBONG

CROSSING T R A MEDD V LETON E ROAD S TO N RD MARY ON TRAVEST

TRAVESTON

AMAMOOR VALLEY

KANDANGA

C A R L D S C R O O S CRE K N L E E R COLES D CREEK

AMAMOOR ROAD

GO OM ON G RD ROAD

RD

EK RE AD C O R SMERD ON RD RING Kandanga SKY FEDERAL Sk yr EEK i CR ng ek K Cre K N AN O ING DA H NG B IG B YR H A WA CR Y E Creek SK Y EK G R KANDANGA L D E N R TH D OR

LW M ID KENI D RD L Ck E E L C A R S D E E RIVE R E R K NS R T D RD

TUCHEKOI

Blue

M E L A W MELAWONDI O ND I RD

AD O GYMPIE REGIONAL COUNCIL R

T U K C A H N E K D ROAD O A I N

G A I M B IL R eek D Cr

py Hap

KE

LLEY NI Jack LW VA

OR

TH D

R

Cr E ee OW k L

ROAD

EEK Yabba CARTERS RIDGE CR SKYRI NG

BELLI

OO RD BROOL ARY IMBIL M BOLLIER SUNSHINE COAST CR REGIONAL COUNCIL Y EE

K RO

k O

ree CO ch C an Anabr W O H LE E L ARA A N R D

IM B I L

B R R OA O D O

L O Blackfellow O R D Belli NEW eek SP Cr APER

RO

HI AD LL BROOLOO

SPIL LER RD

MOY R ROAD VE PO RI CK E T D R S E L Y bber O B Gi ROAD

WA LKER RD Creek ROAD

MOY POCKET BELLI PARK on H

no MOY o ORT LW Legend Co KENI Habitat Restoration Investigation Areas P O C Land Purchase Boundary KET Stage 1 FSL EL 71.0m AHD ARY

M R OA D

Notes RD

P 1. Digital Cadastral Database (DCDB) current at August 2009 GA EUMUNDI

CKET 2. Projection - MGA Zone 56 (GDA94) 100992C_WaterwayManagementAreas_090812.mxd

PO

MOY 3. Level Datum - Australian Height Datum (AHD) MOY POCKET RD

DRAWING NUMBER

0123450.5 FIGURE 2 - 1 Kilometres 100992C ± RESTORATION Scale - 1:25,000 (at A0) INVESTIGATION AREAS DATE: AUGUST 2009 N:\GIS & Drawings\Traveston\Arc_MXD\ N:\GIS

3. IDENTIFICATION OF RESTORATION INVESTIGATION AREAS

3.1 Background As identified in Section 1.3, riparian planting and in-stream habitat restoration along the tributaries will result in greater benefit to habitat value for the four NES species compared to riparian planting along the main channel. Therefore, this HRP focuses on the restoration of riparian vegetation and in-stream habitat along the tributaries in proximity of the Project area and confluence of tributaries with the lake created by the Project. Accordingly, the restoration investigation area is centred on riparian zones, particularly those reaches above the projected FSL of the storage, and those reaches where the water level will remain within bed and banks, thereby conserving existing riparian vegetation communities.

As identified in Section 2 and Table 2-2, the Target Restoration Area committed to by QWI is 310 ha of riparian vegetation and 52.2 km of in-stream habitat.

This section 3 of the HRP sets out the process by which the restoration investigation area has been determined, taking into account spatial analysis, land availability, buffer widths and landscape design.

3.2 Spatial Analysis The availability of broadly suitable rehabilitation areas was determined by interrogating a number of spatial datasets in GIS:

• Pre-clearing extents of Regional Ecosystems (REs) on land zone 3 (alluvium) within the Project area. The pre-clearing extents of RE 12.3.1, 12.3.2, 12.3.7 and 12.3.11 were mapped across the Project area; • Ground truthed RE data conducted for the EIS by 3D Environmental (2007); • The FSL of the proposed impoundment. This enabled determination of reaches of the Mary River and tributaries which are unlikely to be modified from existing conditions. Areas where FSL was contained within existing bed and banks were also identified. These areas have potential value as riparian corridors and habitat for aquatic species such as the Mary River cod; • Records of the Mary River cod, Mary River Turtle, Queensland Lungfish and Giant Barred Frog, and spatial datasets pertaining to the distribution and quality of habitat of those species in the Project area; and • Extent of existing remnant vegetation. These patches provide a focal point for habitat protection and restoration works.

3.3 Buffer Widths and Landscape Design 3.3.1 Background A literature review was completed to determine appropriate key landscape design parameters and buffer widths for the maintenance of water quality, improvement of bank stability and enhancement of landscape connectivity. The literature review is included in Appendix F of this document. Key findings of the literature review are outlined in the following sections.

3.3.2 Landscape design for biodiversity conservation The Giant Barred Frog has been used as a focal species to define the amount and configuration of critical habitat requirements that must be present in the landscape. The theory behind this approach is that the area required by the most area-limited species is used to define the minimum patch size needed in a given landscape, and the most dispersal-limited species is used to define the optimal configuration of patches with respect to interpatch distance. It is assumed that because Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 3-1

the most demanding species are selected, a landscape designed and managed to meet their needs will also satisfy the requirements of all other species within that landscape. This approach builds on and extends from single species to multi-species, the concept of umbrella species (sensu Simberloff, 1998), whose requirements are believed to encapsulate the needs of other species.

A planting width of at least 30 m and up to 60 m on either side of the waterway is proposed on reaches to be rehabilitated primarily as habitat for the Giant Barred Frog (and other species within the landscape). This corresponds with the known maximum ranging behaviour of the species away from stream habitat (Koch and Hero, 2007) and as advised by Associate Professor Hero. Further detail about the Giant Barred Frog is provided in Appendix D of this document. Circumstances may arise when there is a clear conservation benefit to increasing the width of planting beyond 60m (eg. Where there is an opportunity to re-establish landscape connectivity). In such circumstances consideration will be given to the benefits of increasing the width of the restoration area.

3.3.3 Buffer widths for water quality It is not possible to specify a definitive riparian buffer width that will result in improvements in water quality; however, wider buffers show more consistent increases in all water quality benefits than narrow buffers. As buffer width increases the benefits of each additional increase in width diminish with only modest increases of 10-30% in water quality attributes occurring in buffers wider than 30 m. However, for exceptional events such as heavy storms and floods buffers wider than 30 m can be of significant benefit as storms can contribute a high load of sediments and pollutants in a short time.

Along the perimeter of the FSL of the storage, a buffer of 30 m will be established for selected locations where the landscape has been degraded to the point that it no longer functions as an effective natural filter for overland flow. These areas are not included as part of the Target Restoration Area, however, these areas will improve the water quality across the Project area.

It is important to recognise that although revegetated buffer strips can improve water quality, they need to be used in conjunction with improved land management practices to maximise their effectiveness.

The Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI) is working in partnership with QWI to deliver a combined $2.75 million of rural industry initiatives under the “Food & Fibre Futures Investment Partnership Plan”.

3.4 Land Availability An analysis of land in relation to the restoration investigation area was conducted. The following attributes were assessed:

• Location in relation to inundation area and tributaries; • Ownership status; • Land availability - terms of leases and associated conditions; • Access to land; • Topography and slope and general terrain; and • General land use, including aerial photograph interpretation and ground truthing.

As identified in the Executive Summary of this HRP, QWI owns or has reached agreement to purchase 85% of land required for the Project. QWI's landholdings include several hundred

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 3-2

properties with frontage to the Mary River or its tributaries within the pre-clearing (EPA Mapping database 2009) extent of alluvial ecosystems.

The planned Restoration Investigation Areas are located wholly within the existing Land Purchase Boundary, published in late 2006. The final Restoration Investigation Areas will reflect any conditions imposed by the Coordinator General and the Federal Government upon approval of the Project. QWI will seek to continue the purchase of land by voluntary agreement for restoration, where this is not possible compulsory land acquisition powers such as those available to the Coordinator General may be required. Some lease conditions on land owned by QWI may also require variation.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 3-3

4. RIPARIAN RESTORATION STRATEGY

4.1 Objectives The objective of the Riparian Restoration Strategy within this HRP is to restore riparian vegetation along priority areas along the Mary River and selected tributaries towards their pre-cleared condition and to the benefit of the four NES species. Revegetation of areas of degraded riparian vegetation and increase of the riparian buffers, exclusion of stock, staged revegetation and weed control is expected to achieve the following:

• Reduction in sediment turbidity and nutrient levels in water; • Increase in bank stability and reduced erosion; • Increase of large woody debris (snags) as habitat for fish species such as the Mary River cod; • Increase in organic matter (leaf litter) inputs leaving to increased aquatic ecosystem health; • Increase in numbers of terrestrial invertebrates falling into water as food for fish and turtles; • Reduced water temperature and increased dissolved oxygen; • Reduction in biological oxygen demand and bacterial contamination of water; and • Reduction in growth of aquatic weeds and algae.

4.2 Priority Restoration Activities A hierarchy has been developed for the prioritisation of riparian rehabilitation works across the Project area. The hierarchy is based on a combination of attributes including the ecological resilience of existing vegetation, known threatened species value and strategic location (landscape connectivity). Table 4-1 below provides the rehabilitation priorities across the project area.

Table 4-1 Riparian Rehabilitation Priorities

Priority Attributes Ranking 1 Existing remnant vegetation and known habitat of the Giant Barred Frog, upstream of FSL on Coonoon Gibber, Belli, Blackfellow, Skyring and Happy Jack Creeks. 2 Other remnant vegetation communities on tributaries between FSL and the confluence with the Mary River. These areas provide potential habitat for the Mary River cod and Mary River Turtle, and connectivity for the Giant Barred Frog. 3 Existing regrowth vegetation with connectivity value between remnants 4 Other regrowth vegetation 5 Cleared land located between patches of regrowth or remnant vegetation 6 All other cleared areas associated with tributaries 7 Areas fringing the impoundment, where strategic or landscape connectivity values can be enhanced through planting

4.2.1 Priority Communities The Riparian Restoration Strategy focuses on the re-establishment of three RE types across the project area. These were historically the dominant ecosystem types across the project area based on pre-clearing regional ecosystem mapping produced by the Queensland EPA. The target ecosystems for revegetation are:

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 4-1

• RE 12.3.1 – Complex to simple notophyll vine forest. Waterhousea floribunda is predominant fringing stream channels. Other species can include Cryptocarya hypospodia, C. obovata, C. triplinervis, Argyrodendron trifoliolatum, Ficus coronata, F. fraseri, F. macrophylla forma macrophylla, Aphananthe philippinensis, Elaeocarpus grandis, Grevillea robusta, Castanospermum australe and Syzygium francisii. Ficus racemosa and Nauclea orientalis in north of bioregion. Eucalyptus spp. emergents (e.g. E. grandis) and Araucaria cunninghamii; less commonly Agathis robusta may also be present. Occurs on Quaternary alluvial plains and channels; • RE 12.3.7 – Narrow fringing community of Eucalyptus tereticornis, Melaleuca viminalis, Casuarina cunninghamiana ± Waterhousea floribunda. Other species associated with this RE include M. bracteata, M. trichostachya and M. fluviatilis in north of bioregion. Lomandra hystrix often present in-stream beds. Occurs on Quaternary alluvial plains along watercourses; and • RE 12.3.11 - Open-forest to woodland of E. tereticornis, E. siderophloia and Corymbia intermedia. C. tessellaris, Lophostemon suaveolens and M. quinquenervia frequently occur and often form a low tree layer. Other species present in scattered patches or low densities include Angophora leiocarpa, E. exserta, E. grandis, C. trachyphloia, C. citriodora, E. latisinensis, E. tindaliae, E. racemosa, M. sieberi and M. viridiflora. E. seeana may be present south of Landsborough. Occurs on Quaternary alluvial plains and drainage lines along coastal lowlands.

The following management principles will be followed for the protection, maintenance and rehabilitation of riparian vegetation across the Project area.

Areas of existing riparian vegetation assessed to be in good condition will be identified and protected. Areas can be compared with local undisturbed or reference sites, and/or assessed for their capacity to provide crucial riparian zone functions and to self regenerate.

The next priority is to promote natural regeneration or recolonisation where this is possible. This may require checking for availability of seed in the soil or on plants, removal of threats such as grazing animals or weeds, and sometimes deliberate action to promote regeneration (e.g. use of fire).

Replanting, whether by tubestock or direct seeding, is more expensive and requires careful attention to site preparation, especially for weed management and removal of other threats. Species selection, based on reference to undisturbed sites and local knowledge, is required for different parts of the riparian zone, and for different stages of revegetation succession (e.g. early colonisers versus slow-growing climax species). If early support (e.g. artificial watering) is needed to ensure success, it may be best to replant small areas sequentially.

4.2.2 Priority Restoration Areas Western Tributaries The floodplain of Kandanga Creek and Yabba Creek historically supported a mix of RE 12.3.11 and RE 12.3.7 and rehabilitation efforts will seek to restore these pre-clearing patterns of vegetation. Restoration works will be completed within approximately 60 m from the edge of the stream. The primary objective of these works will be to improve habitat conditions for the Queensland Lungfish, Mary River cod and Mary River Turtle, and to provide connectivity for the Giant Barred Frog.

Reaches of Coonoon Gibber Creek, above FSL will be rehabilitated at a width of approximately 60 m from edge of the stream. The floodplain of Coonoon Gibber Creek historically supported a mix of RE 12.3.1 and RE 12.3.11, and the objective of rehabilitation efforts will be to restore the associated vegetation types to the landscape.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 4-2

Rehabilitation investigation areas on the western tributaries are shown in Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2.

Eastern Tributaries Reaches of Skyring Creek, Middle Creek, Happy Jack Creek, Blackfellow Creek and Belli Creek above FSL will be rehabilitated within approximately60 m from the edge of the stream. The riparian zones of the eastern tributaries were historically dominated by a mix of RE 12.3.1 and RE 12.3.11, and the objective of rehabilitation efforts will be to restore the associated vegetation types to the landscape. Reaches between FSL and the impoundment will also be rehabilitated with the same objective.

These tributaries provide key habitats for the Giant Barred Frog and the protection of existing populations, improvement of habitat connectivity and restoration of degraded habitats. Rehabilitation investigation areas on the eastern tributaries are shown in Figure 4-3, Figure 4-4 and Figure 4-5.

Mary River Channel The upper reaches of the Mary River (around the FSL) will be rehabilitated within a width of approximately 60 m from edge of the stream on QWI landholdings. This area was historically dominated by RE 12.3.1 and RE 12.3.11 and these vegetation types will be re-established. Although populations of Giant Barred Frog are not known from this area, riparian restoration will provide habitat for frog movement, as well as benefit a range of species, including threatened species such as the Mary River Turtle, Mary River cod and Queensland Lungfish. Rehabilitation investigation areas on the Mary River Channel are shown in Figure 4-6.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 4-3

AMAMO 100950C

OR 100945C

100948C 100947C

100946C

100949C

R

OAD

SMERD ON RD

K AN DA NG A C RE EK RD

KANDANGA

ER NS T RD

M E L A W O N D I R D

MELAWONDI

Legend Notes

1. Digital Cadastral Database (DCDB) current at August 2009 Land Purchase Boundary

2. Projection - MGA Zone 56 (GDA94) Stage 1 FSL EL 71.0m AHD

3. Level Datum - Australian Height Datum (AHD) Habitat Restoration Investigation Areas

DRAWING NUMBER

0125 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 FIGURE 4-1 Metres 100945C ± Restoration Investigation Areas - Scale - 1:7,000 (at A0) Kandanga Creek and Blue Creek DATE: AUGUST 2009 N:\GIS & Drawings\Traveston\Arc_MXD\100945C_RiparianBuffer_KandangaCk_Ortho_090812.mxd 100950C 100945C

100948C 100947C

100946C

100949C

T U C H E K O I

G

A

I M

B

I L

R D ROAD

Y

LLE

VA

D

R

E

W

O

L

RD BROOLOO Y AR M BOLLIER

Legend Notes

1. Digital Cadastral Database (DCDB) current August 2009 Land Purchase Boundary

2. Projection - MGA Zone 56 (GDA94) Stage 1 FSL EL 71.0m AHD

3. Level Datum - Australian Height Datum (AHD) Habitat Restoration Investigation Areas

W

H

E DRAWING NUMBER

0125 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 FIGURE 4-2 Metres 100947C ± Restoration Investigation Areas - Scale - 1:7,000 (at A0) Coonoon Gibber Creek and Yabba Creek DATE: AUGUST 2009 N:\GIS & Drawings\Traveston\Arc_MXD\100947C_RiparianBuffer_CoonoonGibberCk_Ortho_090812.mxd TRAVESTON 100950C 100945C

100948C 100947C

100946C

100949C

C O LE S C RD R E EK

RD

CREEK

ROAD

RING SKY

FEDERAL

CREEK

HI GH G WAY IN

SKYR

RTH

M ILWO ID D L E KEN C R E E K R D

TUCHEKOI

Legend Notes

1. Digital Cadastral Database (DCDB) current at August 2009 Land Purchase Boundary

2. Projection - MGA Zone 56 (GDA94) Stage 1 FSL EL 71.0m AHD

3. Level Datum - Australian Height Datum (AHD) Habitat Restoration Investigation Areas

DRAWING NUMBER

0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 FIGURE 4-3 Metres 100950C ± Restoration Investigation Areas - Scale - 1:10,000 (at A0) Skyring Creek and Middle Creek DATE: AUGUST 2009 N:\GIS & Drawings\Traveston\Arc_MXD\100950C_RiparianBuffer_Ortho_SkyringCk_090812.mxd 100950C 100945C

100948C 100947C

100946C

100949C

KE

NI

LWOR

TH

Legend Notes

1. Digital Cadastral Database (DCDB) current at August 2009 Land Purchase Boundary

2. Projection - MGA Zone 56 (GDA94) Stage 1 FSL EL 71.0m AHD

3. Level Datum - Australian Height Datum (AHD) Habitat Restoration Investigation Areas

DRAWING NUMBER

0100 200 400 600 800 1,000 FIGURE 4-4

Metres 100948C ± Restoration Investigation Areas - Scale - 1:5,000 (at A0) Happy Jack Creek DATE: AUGUST 2009 N:\GIS & Drawings\Traveston\Arc_MXD\100948C_RiparianBuffer_HappyJackCk_Ortho_0900812.mxd CR

EEK

Y

RO

O

CO

OLEARA

ROAD

NEWS PAP ER

RO

AD

H IL L

ROA D

D R S E L Y O B

100950C 100945C

100948C 100947C

100946C

100949C

Legend Notes

1. Digital Cadastral Database (DCDB) current at August 2009 Land Purchase Boundary

2. Projection - MGA Zone 56 (GDA94) Stage 1 FSL EL 71.0m AHD

3. Level Datum - Australian Height Datum (AHD) Habitat Restoration Investigation Areas

DRAWING NUMBER

0100 200 400 600 800 1,000 FIGURE 4-5 Metres 100946C ± Restoration Investigation Areas - Scale - 1:6,000 (at A0) Belli Creek and Blackfellow Creek DATE: AUGUST 2009 N:\GIS & Drawings\Traveston\Arc_MXD\100940C_RiparianBuffer_BelliCk_0900812.mxd N

100950C 100945C

100948C 100947C

SPIL LER RD

100946C

100949C

D R S E L Y O B

ROAD

WA LKER RD

MOY POCKET

MO

Y

POCKET

ROAD

Notes

1. Digital Cadastral Database (DCDB) current at August 2009

2. Projection - MGA Zone 56 (GDA94) RD

3. Level Datum - Australian Height Datum (AHD)

Legend P GA Land Purchase Boundary Stage 1 FSL EL 71.0m AHD EUMUNDI Habitat Restoration Investigation Areas

POCKET DRAWING NUMBER

0125 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 FIGURE 4-6

Metres 100949C ± Restoration Investigation Areas - Scale - 1:7,000 (at A0) Mary River DATE: AUGUST 2009 N:\GIS & Drawings\Traveston\Arc_MXD\100949C_RiparianBuffer_MaryRiver_Ortho_090812.mxd

4.3 Implementation of the Riparian Rehabilitation Strategy The purpose of the Riparian Rehabilitation Strategy is to identify the availability and configuration of suitable areas for restoration plantings. The Riparian Restoration Strategy does not develop detailed planting prescriptions per se for all of the target RE types; although it has been developed for one sub-alliance within RE 12.3.1 and RE 12.3.7 and 12.3.11. A process has been established for the development of planting prescriptions for each RE to be restored. This process is documented in Appendix G of this document. QWI has existing Memoranda of Understanding with Greening Australia, and Queensland Water and Land Carers Inc (QWaLC). In particular, Greening Australia has indicated that they are able to provide immediate on-ground resources to commence some of the HRP activities.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 4-10

5. IN-STREAM HABITAT RESTORATION STRATEGY

5.1 Objectives The In-stream Habitat Restoration Strategy focuses on the restoration of in-stream habitat complexity through the re-introduction of wood to the system on selected reaches within those stream lengths identified as priority restoration areas for the aquatic species of concern.

The objective of the in-stream rehabilitation work is to maximise habitat complexity, geomorphic complexity and improve channel stability on selected reaches where in-stream habitat is homogenous in nature. These outcomes will result in a direct benefit to the Mary River Turtle, Mary River cod and Queensland Lungfish.

By increasing the in-stream habitat complexity of selected reaches it is anticipated that the following will be achieved:

• Increased large woody debris (snags) as submerged habitat for fish species such as the Mary River cod and emergent habitat (basking sites) for the Mary River Turtle; • Induce local bed scour without compromising bank integrity. The objective is to create scour pools that provide habitat and cover for migrating fish and that are sufficiently close together to allow fish to readily move from one pool to the next; • Increased organic matter (leaf litter) inputs leading to increased aquatic ecosystem health. The introduction of wood to the system is likely to promote the growth of diatoms, algae and biofilms and also provide additional habitat for macroinvertebrates. These biological responses are likely to be good for the overall ecology of the system, but they are not specific aims for the Project and given the high associated sampling costs have not been included in this HRP; and • Increased habitat heterogeneity within the stream itself thereby increasing opportunity for establishment of specific habitat attributes, such as macrophyte beds.

5.2 Priority Restoration Activities A hierarchy has also been developed for the prioritisation of in-stream rehabilitation works across the Project area. The hierarchy is based on a combination of attributes including known threatened species value and strategic location (from a connectivity viewpoint). Table 5-1 below provides the in-stream rehabilitation priorities across the Project area. Site specific assessment will be required within Target Restoration Area to determine the need for, and potential benefits of, in-stream restoration works.

Table 5-1 In-stream Rehabilitation Priorities

Priority Attributes Ranking 1 Lower reaches of tributaries and the confluence of tributaries with the proposed impoundment, particularly on Kandanga, Yabba, Skyring, Happy Jack and Belli Creeks with deep pools, steep sided banks or overhanging banks, preferably with a combination of these attributes. 2 In-stream habitat on the Mary River Channel, upstream of projected FSL. 3 In-stream habitat on the Mary River Channel, upstream from the location where FSL is contained within bed and banks of the river 4 Within the impoundment

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 5-1

5.2.1 Habitat Creation Overview The in-stream habitat creation in this strategy is centred on the re-introduction of wood to the Mary River and selected tributaries. The role that trees and branches falling into waterways (variously described as snags, large woody debris (LWD), coarse woody debris (CWD), woody debris, wood, log jams or structural woody habitat (SWH)) play in aquatic ecosystem health and channel morphodynamics is well documented. Lovett and Price (2007) provided an analysis of the function attributes of wood, summarised as follows:

• Riparian vegetation increases stream channel complexity and directly contributes to aquatic habitat through inputs of logs and branches. In turn, the provision of complex habitat has a major influence on aquatic biodiversity. • Logs and branches can enhance stream stability, regulate sediment transport and exert significant control on channel complexity in bedrock rivers, and channel geomorphology in alluvial rivers. • Logs contribute to the formation of physical features in-streams, such as scour pools and channel bars, which serve as habitat for in-stream biota. • Logs provide physical habitat for biota at all levels of the food chain, ranging from microscopic bacteria, fungi and algae, to macroinvertebrates, fish and turtles. • Logs also provide sites where bacteria, fungi and algae can process carbon and other nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, thus contributing to ecosystem processes such as productivity and respiration. • In alluvial rivers, logs can modify surface water/ground water exchange and enhance nutrient processing. • Logs from Australian riparian zones are relatively immobile. Australian streams tend to have a low average stream power, the wood has a high density and many riparian trees have a complex branching structure that ensures they are easily anchored in position after falling into a stream. • Although vast amounts of wood have been removed from many Australian rivers, what does remain provides important habitat for microbes, invertebrates, fish and other animals. • Retention and reinstatement of logs should be a priority for river rehabilitation, instead of removal or even realignment.

As each of the aquatic species of concern in this Strategy has suffered adverse impacts as a result of de-snagging of waterways, there are clear benefits to be derived from the re-introduction of wood to the Mary River and tributaries. Clearly, the re-introduction of wood to systems where in- stream habitat complexity is already high and riparian systems are relatively intact would be of limited benefit. As such, further prioritisation of in-stream restoration works will be required.

Experiments currently underway in Australia have demonstrated that wood can be safely and effectively reintroduced into rivers, however, the initial results suggest that large volumes will be required over extensive lengths of rivers to have a measurable response at the system scale. (Brooks, 2006)

The source of wood to be used for in-stream habitat restoration will be from the areas to be cleared within the Project area. Suitable wood will be re-used from timber cleared as part of site preparation as outlined in Section 7.5.2 of the EIS.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 5-2

5.2.2 Preparation of Reach Scale Prescriptions Reach-scale wood re-introduction plans will be developed for all priority reaches in accordance with the process set out by (Brooks, 2006) in the Design Guideline for the Reintroduction of Wood to Australian Streams. Key stages in the development of reach prescriptions will include the following:

• Completing a preliminary investigation of the catchment context of the reach, reach dynamics, completion of Thalweg survey, preparation of planform map and investigation of bed material statistics. • Collating a dataset to inform the design of the wood re-introduction strategy including the following: - Channel cross section surveys to morphological bankfull height and onto the flood plain. Representative sections spaced at no more than one channel widths separation, ideally located at the site of each structure location, with a minimum of 10 per site to try to encapsulate more than one complete riffle-pool sequence (if they exist). - Channel long profile survey (at least three riffle pool sequences or 15–20 channel widths long).This is for determining the reach bed slope — i.e. as a regression from riffle to riffle (if riffles exist). - Bed material samples: one per cross section. • Some flow discharge magnitude/frequency data from which a design discharge can be selected (e.g. 10 year ARI discharge). If gauging data is not available, a regional catchment area/discharge relation can be used. As a minimum, the morphological bankfull discharge can be estimated using the Manning equation from the slope and cross section area data. • Volume of wood being reintroduced can be estimated based on assumed log diameter at breast height (dbh) and lengths. • Wood dry density. • Developing a hydraulic model of the reach. This will provide a cross sectional depth averaged velocity at the intended locations of the in-stream structures. • Designing engineered log jams and other in-stream structures in response to predicted site conditions. • Developing reach specific monitoring plans for in-stream habitat complexity and four NES species.

A high level of expertise and analysis is required to produce reach-specific prescriptions, and such analysis is beyond the scope of this document.

5.2.3 Priority Restoration Areas Lower Reaches of Tributaries The lower reaches of the tributaries (and the confluence with the impoundment) will be subject to riparian vegetation restoration works and in-stream habitat restoration. These areas provide potential habitat for the Mary River cod, Mary River Turtle and Queensland Lungfish in particular. Sites which already contain deep pools, steep-sided banks and overhanging banks will be preferentially rehabilitated because these complex habitats are difficult to create.

Western Tributaries Kandanga Creek and Yabba Creek currently provide potential habitat for the Mary River cod, Mary River Turtle and Queensland Lungfish. The potential value of re-introduction of wood to these systems will be assessed on a reach by reach basis at the time of development of reach scale prescriptions.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 5-3

Mary River Channel The Mary River channel upstream of FSL currently provides habitat for the Queensland Lungfish and Mary River Turtle in particular. The potential value of re-introduction of wood to this system will be assessed on a reach by reach basis at the time of development of reach scale prescriptions.

Impoundment Wood will be introduced in key locations within the impoundment in an effort to improve habitat connectivity between areas upstream and downstream of the proposed dam wall and tributaries to the east and west. Prescriptions will be developed for the impoundment at such a time as construction works are completed and all vegetation to be cleared from the impoundment margin has been cleared.

5.3 Restoration Targets 5.3.1 Benchmark data Benchmark data will be gathered from reaches within the catchment that are considered to be representative of good quality habitat for the four NES species. These data will inform reach specific restoration works by providing long-term targets for habitat attributes. Attributes to be assessed are described in Table 5-2 below.

Table 5-2 Key Habitat Attributes to be Monitored for Aquatic Species

Species Key Habitat Monitoring Approach Attribute Mary River Turtle Pools >3 m deep Comparison of the number of pools >3 m deep per 500 m of stream in rehabilitated sites compared to reference sites. Abundance of Survey using zigzag transect method described by van submerged and Wagner 1968 and Wallace and Benke 1984. Restoration emergent logs target based on the mean and variance of snag abundance at (underwater habitat the reference sites. and basking sites) Substantial Map of the restoration site produced with relevant areas macrophyte beds marked so that cover can be quantitatively measured or a Braun-Blanquet scoring system be used. Restoration target based on the proportion of cover at reference sites. . Protected sand Extent and condition of sand beaches at rehabilitation sites. beaches void of Map of the restoration site produced with relevant areas vegetation near marked so that cover can be quantitatively measured or a flowing, well Braun-Blanquet scoring system be used. Restoration target oxygenated streams based on the proportion of cover at reference sites. with riffles Mary River Cod Deep pools >2 m Comparison of the number of pools >3 m deep per 500 m of deep stream in rehabilitated sites compared to reference sites. Abundance of Survey using zigzag transect method described by van submerged and Wagner 1968 and Wallace and Benke 1984. Restoration emergent logs target based on the mean and variance of snag abundance at (underwater habitat the reference sites. and basking sites) Heavily shaded by Number of metres of bank with overhanging vegetation, overhanging estimated over a 100 m section of channel. The restoration vegetation target will be determined after considering the amount (and variability) of overhanging vegetation at the reference sites. Queensland Range of water Measure average pool depth and variation at reference sites

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 5-4

Species Key Habitat Monitoring Approach Attribute Lungfish depths between 1 and use this to set restoration targets. Measure depth of every and 3 m pool along a 500 m section of river at each site (reference and restoration). Heavily shaded by Number of metres of bank with overhanging vegetation, overhanging estimated over a 100 m section of channel. The restoration vegetation target will be determined after considering the amount (and variability) of overhanging vegetation at the reference sites. Abundance of Survey using zigzag transect method described by van submerged and Wagner 1968 and Wallace and Benke 1984. Restoration emergent logs target based on the mean and variance of snag abundance at (underwater habitat the reference sites. and basking sites) Dense macrophyte Macrophyte species lists should be prepared for each site and beds (top priority) cover should be assessed by sketching areas on scale maps especially Vallisneria of each site or by using Braun-Blanquet estimates. Restoration gigantea, Egeria target based on the proportion of cover at reference sites. densa and Hydrilla verticillata and water primrose and water lilies

5.3.2 Targets for In-stream Habitat Complexity Targets for in-stream habitat complexity will be set following the gathering of benchmark data. These targets will relate to specific habitat attributes of relevance to the four NES species as set out above.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 5-5

6. DEMONSTRATING NETT CONSERVATION BENEFIT IN THE SHORT TERM

6.1 Rationale Immediate actions planned under this HRP will result in conservation benefit in the short term (1-2 years) and a series of performance indicators are proposed which are auditable over that time period, these are presented below.

The comparison of monitoring results from rehabilitated sites with baseline data and reference sites, as discussed in Section 9, will provide useful information on the progress of a site towards target conditions. This approach has been termed ‘trajectory analysis’ by the Society for Restoration Ecology (2004). When combined with ecological knowledge, this approach assist in identifying which attributes need intervention to ‘move’ them towards target conditions, and which can be left to develop by natural processes.

6.2 Performance Indicators 6.2.1 Area of land under rehabilitation It is intended that a total of 310 ha of riparian vegetation within the Target Restoration Area, will be rehabilitated in accordance with the approach put forward in this HRP. The area of land under rehabilitation (revegetation, assisted natural regeneration or conservation management) can be readily measured and will be a primary measure of the performance of this HRP in the short term.

Length of stream protected from grazing It is estimated that approximately 52 km of stream bank length within the Target Restoration Area will be fenced to exclude cattle as an integral component of rehabilitation works. The length of riparian vegetation protected by fencing can be readily measured and is a reasonable performance indicator over the short term (1-2 years).

Condition of revegetation sites Kanowski et al. (2008b) presented a methodology for assessing the condition of revegetation projects that is simple, rapid and informative. The term “condition”, means the extent to which a project is ‘on track’ towards target conditions, considering its age and stage of development, and other relevant factors. This approach is discussed in Section 9.1.2 of this report. A suitable, auditable performance indicator for this attribute is the extent of each revegetation site within Zone A, B and C in accordance with the condition assessment presented in Section 9.1.2 of this report.

6.2.2 Habitat Index of in-stream rehabilitation sites Information from the in-stream habitat reference sites will be used as the target condition for habitat creation. As discussed in Section 9.2 of this HRP, a cover rating for each rehabilitation site will be determined following annual monitoring events. As an overall indicator of rehabilitation, this cover rating should be trending towards the target cover rating immediately on the re-introduction of woody debris to the rehabilitation reach within the Target Restoration Area.

6.2.3 Performance Targets From the performance indictors suggested above, a range of performance targets have been set for the short term (1-2 years), suggested performance targets are listed in Table 6-1 below.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 6-1

Table 6-1 Short term performance targets for rehabilitation

Performance Indicator Short term performance target Area of land under active Rehabilitation works commenced on 100% of Priority Restoration rehabilitation works Area. Total of 310 ha of land under rehabilitation. Length of stream fenced 52.2 km of stream bank length fenced Condition of revegetation sites 70% of area of all revegetation sites in Zone A, using condition assessment criteria defined in this HRP. Vegetation structure of Key attributes of canopy cover, height and species diversity revegetation sites demonstrate trend towards reference site condition.

6.2.4 Specific timeframes for use of rehabilitated areas by the four NES species Few data are available relating to the use of rehabilitated habitat by the four NES species which makes defining timeframes for occupation by four NES species difficult. It is presumed that some rehabilitation areas have the potential to support the four NES species immediately, whilst others (e.g. sites revegetated from heavily grazed grassland) will take many years to provide suitable habitat.

Ongoing monitoring of the sites will identify the temporal scale over which the four NES species gain benefit from the activities described in this HRP.

6.2.5 Natural Disasters It is possible that during the life of the Project, natural disasters such as floods, cyclones or fires could impact on restoration works. In the event that restoration works are damaged by natural events, the feasibility of re-establishment will be investigated on a case by case basis.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 6-2

7. IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS HRP

7.1 Immediate Actions Whilst this HRP necessarily focuses on the mechanisms for physical restoration of riparian and in- stream habitats, there are a range of immediate actions which are proposed to commence from the date of approval and which will provide immediate conservation benefit. These include the protection of existing habitat, fencing of restoration areas, weed and vertebrate pest management and other land management initiatives. The timing of these activities is presented in Figure 7-1 below, although it should noted that the Proponents commitment extends beyond the filling stage.

Figure 7-1 Implementation timeline for HRP Restoration Activity Post Approval Construction Filling Impoundment area clearing Protection of existing habitat Baseline Survey & Ranking Weed Control & Exotic Sp. Removal Fencing & Stock Control Vertebrate Pest Control Infill Planting

Riparian Revegetation Works Baseline Survey & Ranking Exotic Sp. Removal Ground Preparation Planting Weed Control Fencing & Stock Control Vertebrate Pest Control Monitoring Infill Planting

In- stream Restoration Works Reach Prioritisation& Ranking In stream Construction

1-3 years 1-3 years 1-2 years

7.2 Catchment Condition Outcomes In realising a nett benefit, the historical environmental context is important. The general trend of catchment condition is that of ongoing degradation, commencing with the clearing of productive floodplain in the 1800’s, followed by the introduction of pest animals, introduction of weeds, grazing pressure, declining water quality and chemistry, continued suppression of natural regeneration,

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 7-1

significant erosion and sedimentation (resulting in the loss of pool habitat), de-snagging of in-stream habitat and construction of impoundments without adequate consideration of fauna passage. Key indicators of catchment condition will continue on this degradation pathway without targeted and at scale, mitigation measures, including improved flow connectivity.

All of the Scientific Advisers have agreed that the “do nothing” scenario is likely to lead to further deterioration of the four NES species of particular interest. It was also concluded that this HRP will provide a unique opportunity to enhance their long-term survival by reducing, stabilising, and reversing the current degradation processes.

This catchment condition pathway is represented conceptually in Figure 7-2 over page.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 7-2

Figure 7-2 Conceptual Catchment Condition

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 7-3

The implementation of the post approval activities in Figure 7-1 of this HRP will result in considerable and immediate benefits across the Project area prior to the commencement of construction. As outlined in Figure 7-2 the conservation benefits of the post approval restoration works will accrue prior, during and after construction, and the clearing of the impoundment area. Improvements in water quality and bank stability, an increase in riparian vegetation extent and reduction in weed and pest vertebrate populations will create a nett benefit by more than offsetting the negative impacts associated with vegetation clearing and filling of the impoundment. These measures will be well established within the post approval phase of the Project.

The conceptual representation of the catchment condition trajectory presented above considers three potential implementation scenarios (high case, expected, low case) and their consequent outcomes. These are described in Table 7-1 below.

Table 7-1 HRP Outcomes under high-case, expected and low-case scenarios Implementation Assumed Outcome Scenario Revegetation Habitat Water Quality Pest Filling of Protection Improvement Management Impoundment High-case 100% survival All existing Substantial and Elimination of Gradual filling of seedlings, habitat fenced immediate pest over 2 year extensive and managed. reduction in vertebrates and period natural Cattle excluded pollutant levels, problem weeds regeneration. from key areas including from the Project suspended area sediment Expected 80% survival of All habitat Significant Significant Gradual filling revegetation, within priority improvement in reduction in the over 1-2 year considerable restoration water quality in abundance of period. natural areas fenced, the short term weeds and pest regeneration in with cattle (1-2 years vertebrates protected excluded. period). remnants Low-case Failure of Some fencing Some Continued Filling in a revegetation and minimal improvement in presence of single event. (less than 50% exclusion of water quality pest success), cattle. due to vertebrates and limited natural improved land problem weed recruitment management species. practices under QWI control.

The expected scenario is one of continuing and escalating improvement in catchment condition after completion of the post approval restoration works and the undertaking of the suite of other mitigation strategies proposed.

The Scientific Advisers agreed and concluded that without the elimination and/or active management of current threatening processes, through the measures proposed by this HRP, the four NES species may continue to decline in the Mary River catchment.

Furthermore, the Scientific Advisers concluded that the Project will provide a unique opportunity to implement a concerted and rigorous set of measures over a broad area that will result in the restoration and improvement of habitat.

This element of scale is not possible in any other part of the catchment and negates the scale risk that has compromised restoration attempts in this catchment and other catchments to date.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 7-4

7.3 Immediate Benefits of HRP Implementation There are multiple and overlapping immediate benefits of implementation of this HRP. The most immediate benefits will result from habitat protection (cattle exclusion and fencing), vertebrate pest control and weed control. These are discussed below.

7.3.1 Habitat Protection The fencing of habitat remnants will commence immediately on Project approval. This will control stock and vehicle access to stream banks and shallows, protecting the habitat of each of the four NES species (for example, by preventing the trampling of Mary River Turtle nests by cattle (EIS p9-51) and allowing regrowth of habitat of the Giant Barred Frog).

It is intended that livestock be excluded from Priority Restoration Areas within QWI landholdings within 12 months of Project approval. This would represent a significant and immediate scale of benefit. In addition to achieving soil conservation goals, it is widely acknowledged that livestock exclusion from streams will result in improvements in riparian vegetation, channel morphology, as well as in-stream habitat and aquatic insect assemblages (Ranganeth et al., 2009).

Ranganeth et al., 2009 found livestock exclusion reaches were significantly deeper, had larger median riffle substrate, and scored higher on the Reach Condition Index (a qualitative geomorphic assessment methodology). The livestock exclusion reaches also had significantly higher riparian groundcover vegetation biomass.

The negative impacts of the cattle are likely to diminish rapidly after fencing occurs (Owens et al. 1997; Platts and Nelson, 1985).

The immediacy of the improvement in water quality should not be understated. For example, an Australian study identified significant improvement in suspended sediment yield with the removal of stock from comparable pastures. The suspended sediment yield from the comparable pastures declined from 150% to 50% after the first year of cattle exclusion and remained constant thereafter (Hawdon et al, 2008).

Thus, improvements in water quality are expected to occur rapidly as a result of implementation of this HRP, to the immediate benefit of all of the four NES species.

7.3.2 Vertebrate Pest Control A Vertebrate Pest Control program will be developed and implemented immediately on approval of the Project. The Pest Control program will be developed with a central focus of protecting the nesting habitat of the Mary River Turtle, but will benefit populations of all native species in the Project area Supplementary Report Section 30.4.11).

The currently, overwhelming loss of Mary River turtle nests would be significantly reduced by the broad scale implementation of nest protection techniques. In concert with protection of habitat from physical disturbance such as trampling by cattle, nest protection plays a necessary role in recovery of the species.

Turtle nest protection programmes have been implemented with great success both in Australia and abroad, with significant improvements in the level of recruitment to threatened populations. In relation to the nesting success of the Mary River Turtle, the EPA (2006) found that fresh predator tracks were common at every nesting bank. Wild dogs, dingoes, foxes and goannas would predate all eggs laid if nests were not protected. The success of nest protection programs for the Mary River Turtle to date is acknowledged.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 7-5

The immediate implementation of nest protection and predator control programs in the Project area is likely to result in a corresponding improvement in the level of nesting success and subsequent recruitment to the Mary River Turtle population.

7.3.3 Weed Control A Weed Management Plan will also be developed and implemented on Project approval. Weed species threaten the nesting success of the Mary River Turtle (by colonising their historically bare nesting banks), compromise natural regeneration and alter vegetation structure and composition. Weeds may have significant economic and social impacts, as well as environmental impacts, including the reduction of biodiversity, degradation of water quality and increased risk of fire. Implementation of a comprehensive weed management strategy across the Project area will complement the actions proposed in this HRP by allowing natural regeneration, restoring a more natural habitat structure (Supplementary Report Section 30.4.7).

These measures will complement existing arrangements currently in place under Lease provisions on QWI landholdings.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 7-6

8. UPTAKE OF RESTORATION AREAS

8.1 Overview The uptake of restoration areas is an important consideration in this HRP. The focus of this HRP is on the restoration of the known or likely habitat of the four NES species in the post-development scenario.

Table 8-1 below presents the expected uptake of restoration areas by the four NES species. The initial focus of this HRP will be protecting existing habitats and building resilience in those areas by reducing weed and vertebrate pest populations, encouraging regeneration of native species, excluding the physical impacts of cattle and enhancing habitat links.

Table 8-1 Expected Uptake of Restoration Areas by four NES species

Restoration Area Expected Uptake by four NES species Mary River Mary River Giant Queenslan Turtle Cod Barred d Lungfish Frog Existing remnant vegetation upstream of FSL on NA NA ▲ NA Coonoon Gibber, Belli, Blackfellow, Skyring and Happy Jack Creeks. Lower reaches of tributaries particularly on ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Kandanga, Yabba, Skyring, Happy Jack and Belli Creeks In-stream habitat on the Mary River Channel, ▲ ▲ NA ▲ upstream of projected FSL. In-stream habitat on the Mary River Channel, ▲ ▲ NA ▲ upstream from the location where FSL is contained within bed and banks of the river Existing regrowth vegetation with connectivity NA NA ■ NA value between remnants Within the impoundment ■ ■ NA ■ Table Legend ▲ Known to occur at present, will benefit from protection and restoration ■ Likely to occur in the future, habitat quality improved through HRP implementation NA Unlikely to occur regularly in this area (not applicable)

8.2 Uptake of revegetated areas by Giant Barred Frog Based on the available baseline data, population sizes within the proposed inundation area are very small, relative to populations upstream. Population sizes observed during baseline studies for the EIS were 2 (Mary River), 4 (Skyring Creek), 1 (Belli Creek). This contrasts markedly with data collected from sites upstream of the Project area on Coonoon Gibber Creek, where 38 individuals were recorded on a single survey night over a 1.5km reach (SKM, 2009). Available data suggest that the largest populations and most intact habitat occur on Coonoon Gibber and Belli Creek systems above the impact area of the Project.

Based on observations of the behaviour of this species in the wild, frogs move away from a stream in response to natural flood events (Koch and Hero, 2007). The same response is anticipated at the time of filling of the impoundment. At this time, dispersal upstream is considered likely to occur,

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 8-1

with individuals permanently displaced from their pre-disturbance home range. The limiting factors to successful dispersal of the Giant Barred Frog into new home ranges will be (a) the presence of adequate vegetation cover along tributaries and (b) the occurrence of habitat patches of sufficient size to accommodate the immigrants.

The Giant Barred Frog's use of revegetated corridors as dispersal pathways between habitat patches is likely. Although data which relate to the use of revegetated sites by the Giant Barred Frog is limited, it is known to utilise young revegetation in the nearby Stanley River catchment. Plate 8-1 below shows a young (3 months) revegetation site in the Stanley catchment which is used by Giant Barred Frogs. The revegetation occurs adjacent to and in between narrow fringing remnant vegetation which is known to support a population of Giant Barred Frogs.

Plate 8-1 – Young revegetation site used by foraging Giant Barred Frogs, Stanley catchment

The revegetation site pictured was found to be used by both adult and sub-adult frogs which ranged freely across the relatively open habitat provided by the revegetation area. These observations strongly suggest that the Giant Barred Frog will move freely through revegetated sites at an early stage of development. With several years of growth, the habitat value (and corridor value) of the revegetation area is likely to increase.

The behaviour observed in the Stanley catchment is consistent with observations of the species on Coonoon Gibber Creek in the Mary River catchment, where sub-adults were particularly abundant on the periphery of riparian vegetation and in cleared paddocks adjacent to this vegetation (SKM, 2009).

The fact that this species occurs in separated catchments with no direct hydrological connectivity indicates that overland dispersal is very likely to occur.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 8-2

Plate 8-2 – Young revegetation site used by foraging Giant Barred Frogs, Stanley catchment

Plate 8-3 – Adult Giant Barred Frog found foraging in young revegetation

The successful emigration and translocation of the Giant Barred Frog is contingent on there being sufficient available habitat to receive dispersing/translocated individuals. Emigration to upstream habitats will undoubtedly result in the displacement of individual frogs from their pre-disturbance home range.

The implementation of this HRP will result in an increase in connectivity between existing habitat patches, as well as increasing the overall area of habitat available on tributaries. More significantly, the implementation of this HRP will increase the carrying capacity of existing habitat by improving

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 8-3

habitat complexity (particularly increasing groundcover through cattle exclusion), thereby increasing the likelihood that recipient patches will be able to accommodate the introduction of new individuals to the population.

The restoration area of approximately 190 ha will build on existing habitat to be retained in the Project area. The ultimate objective for habitat restoration on the tributaries is the creation of a continuous riparian habitat network, consolidating currently highly fragmented remnants. The benefit of protecting existing habitat, linking populations through a continuous habitat network and managing persistent threats (such as weed invasion and trampling of habitat) will outweigh the loss of habitat from the Project area.

Based on the known dispersal behaviour of this species, particularly its observed response to natural flooding, movement of individuals away from and upstream of the inundation area is likely to occur. With several years of revegetation growth achievable prior to inundation, a reasonable degree of habitat connectivity can be achieved for this species. As a multi tiered mitigation approach, rescue and translocation of individual frogs is also proposed as a mitigation measure (Supplementary Report Section 20.5.2.1).

8.3 Use of Restoration Reaches by Aquatic Species The priority in-stream restoration areas are already occupied by the Mary River Turtle, Mary River cod and Queensland Lungfish. As all species are known to occur in impoundments, their continued presence within the Project area and associated tributaries is virtually certain. The uptake of restoration areas is expected to be immediate. Furthermore, the restoration of in-stream habitat is expected to enhance the prospect of recruitment (Supplementary Report Sections 20.6.1, 20.6.2 and 20.6.3).

Increased in-stream habitat complexity, improved water quality and riparian ecosystem function will benefit these species both within and beyond the Project area. The immediate biological response of the aquatic NES species to improved water quality and riparian zone condition is unclear due to a lack of published information, however research conducted through the FSCC will assist in this regard. The expected response of the NES species is that they will utilise the newly introduced habitat elements. Particularly woody debris for shelter (particularly the Mary River Cod and Queensland Lungfish), basking (particularly the Mary River Turtle and Giant Barred Frog) and potentially spawning in the case of the Mary River Cod.

8.4 Likelihood of catastrophic decline in four NES species This HRP represents a large scale, proportionate and considered response to the potential impacts of the Project on the habitat of the four NES species. However, success of the mitigation strategies and persistence of the four NES species is not contingent on all areas of habitat within the Project area being immediately suitable for occupation.

The immediate benefits of this HRP have been discussed in the previous sections. These benefits have been considered against the potential effects of the Project and provide a balanced view of the likelihood of adverse impacts on the four NES species.

The likelihood of significant adverse impacts on the four NES species prior to the realisation of the full benefits of this HRP (and supporting initiatives) is considered low. A range of factors combine to lead to this conclusion, including the following:

• The primary negative effect of the Project in the short term will be loss of small areas of fringing riparian vegetation from the dam construction area and (immediately prior to inundation) the impoundment itself. These areas are not critical to the survival of the four NES species.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 8-4

• There will be a temporary loss of potential breeding habitat for the Queensland Lungfish from the impounded area. This loss will be offset by the establishment of optimised environmental flows downstream of the impoundment, known to create optimum conditions for the establishment of macrophyte beds, the preferred breeding substrate of the species. Suitable breeding habitat is also likely to develop within the impoundment. • Seven known low density nesting banks of the Mary River Turtle will be lost or modified on filling of the impoundment. These nesting banks are not critical to the survival of the Mary River Turtle. In addition to translocation of the turtles, this loss of nesting banks can be immediately offset by construction of new nesting places, investing in predator control programs and nest protection works. This species is known to occur in impoundments throughout the catchment and the Project area and will continue to provide foraging habitat and dispersal opportunities. • The Project will impact on poor quality habitat for the Mary River cod. This species will benefit from in-stream restoration works and riparian restoration over an extensive area. This species will also occur in the impoundment and the loss of poor quality habitat will not threaten its survival. • The vegetation clearing for the Project will primarily occur on the Mary River itself, which has the lowest relative value for the Giant Barred Frog that mainly occupies the tributaries. Recognising that this species is the most sensitive to vegetation loss, specific measures have been developed for this species including translocation of individuals and retention of vegetation within 1.5 m of FSL to provide dispersal pathways away from the inundation area. Translocation of the Giant Barred Frog has the potential to restore genetic exchange and mixing between currently isolated populations, offsetting impacts of physical loss of connectivity between some sub-populations. • There will be no modification of river flows and therefore no reduction in connectivity for the target aquatic NES species prior to the filling of the storage. Impacts on dispersal behaviour of the aquatic NES species are not expected until such time as the storage is gradually filled. Once the storage becomes operational, connectivity will continue and be enhanced through flow optimisation. • The four NES species currently utilise the Mary River and tributaries, including unaffected areas above FSL. These areas will continue to be utilised by the four NES species throughout construction and filling of the storage and during operation. The unaffected populations of four NES species upstream and downstream of the Project will provide source populations for re- establishment within the impoundment and lower tributaries following filling of the impoundment. • In summary, the construction of the dam and filling of the impoundment will modify the known habitat of the Mary River Turtle, Mary River cod and Queensland Lungfish. Any loss of habitat for the Giant Barred Frog will be offset by a range of mitigation strategies, including the protection of currently unprotected and unmanaged habitat. • The survival of these species at the catchment level is not dependent upon the Project area alone, and substantial areas of habitat remain available upstream and downstream of the Project area. As such, the persistence of the four NES species is not contingent on the Project area providing ideal conditions at all times. The short term decline in condition associated with the inundation phase of the Project will be effectively offset by implementing the strategies presented in this HRP. The immediate benefits associated with implementation of this HRP will build ecosystem resilience, and, in the long term, will result in a nett gain of high quality habitat for the four NES species.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 8-5

9. MONITORING METHODOLOGY

The purpose of the monitoring methodology is to provide a framework for tracking the progress of riparian and in-stream restoration works. This monitoring methodology considers two implementation timeframes; the immediate (between commencement of restoration works and first filling of the storage) and the longer-term.

9.1 Monitoring of Riparian Restoration Works 9.1.1 Detecting Biodiversity Benefit Monitoring of revegetation projects can show whether revegetated sites are progressing towards target conditions, in terms of habitat structure or other aspects of biodiversity (see Figure 9-1). Ideally, monitoring would include a baseline survey of the revegetated site (i.e. prior to on-ground works), so that subsequent surveys can show how much a site has changed following revegetation, and surveys of forest reference sites (e.g. remnants of the pre-clearing forest type) to represent the target conditions (Society for Ecological Restoration 2004). Together, baseline data and surveys of reference sites provide benchmarks to evaluate trends in the revegetated site.

Figure 9-1 Monitoring of biodiversity outcomes on revegetation projects (Kanowski et al, 2008)

9.1.2 Short-term Monitoring Condition of Revegetation Sites Methodology Kanowski et al (2008b) presented a methodology for assessing the condition of revegetation projects that is simple, rapid and informative. The term “condition”, means the extent to which a project is ‘on track’ towards target conditions, considering its age and stage of development, and other relevant factors. The methodology has been developed from the experience of restoration practitioners (e.g. Kooyman 1996; Tucker and Murphy 1997; Freebody 2007) and from relevant

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 9-1

research (e.g. Grundon et al. 2002; Catterall et al. 2004, 2008; Kanowski and Catterall 2007; Kanowski et al. 2008a, 2008b; 2008c; 2008d). This methodology will be used to assess the condition of revegetation works at all revegetation sites.

The assessment of condition put forward by Kanowski et al (2008b) focuses primarily on the following attributes:

• The survival of planted trees (a major influence on establishment success); • Canopy cover (a key regulator of the rainforest environment); • Ground cover (influences plant recruitment and growth); • Problem weeds (plants which can adversely affect site development); and • Recruitment (determines the long-term composition of a site).

These attributes are strongly interlinked: e.g. sites where mortality of planted trees is high tend to have a relatively open canopy and a grassy ground cover. The particular attributes used have been selected for their relevance to reforested sites; additional attributes may need to be used for remnant enhancement and regrowth management projects.

Kanowski et al (2008b) developed a protocol and associated proforma for assessing site condition. A worked example of a site assessment is provided in Appendix I of this document. The steps in condition assessment are provided below.

• Obtain any previous condition assessment of the site, including maps, and other relevant documentation of the site. • Conduct a field inspection of the site. Based on the relevant condition criteria, determine whether all or part of the site is: - OK (‘on track’ towards target conditions, requires only routine maintenance); - Uncertain (significant problems identified, requires intervention); or - Poor (major problems identified, likely to fail without major intervention). • If outcomes vary across a site, divide the site into zones, and record outcomes for each zone separately. • Make overall comments on the condition of the site. • Determine whether the condition of the site has changed since last assessment, and comment on any changes. • Complete the table describing site condition in detail. Where outcomes vary across the site, divide the site into zones (‘A’ = OK, ‘B’ = uncertain; ‘C’ = poor) and record outcomes for each zone separately. Comment on the attributes of each zone, particularly the factors that appear to be affecting outcomes, such as the species mix used, stocking rates, weeds, disturbance or maintenance. • Draw a map of the site showing any variation in outcomes. Calculate the area of each zone and the proportion of the site in each zone. • Make recommendations for maintenance, where relevant. The rating system is closely linked to maintenance requirements: - Zone A = routine maintenance only required; - Zone B = additional maintenance required, more than routine (need to describe); - Zone C = major maintenance effort required (need to describe).

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 9-2

If desired, calculate an overall ‘site condition’ score. This score reflects the proportion of the site in good, uncertain or poor condition, and ranges from 0% (when the entire site is in poor condition) to 100% (when the entire site is ‘on track’ to target conditions).

Various intermediate scores are possible (e.g. a score of 50% could mean 50% of the site is ‘OK’ and the rest ‘poor’; it could also mean that 40% is ‘OK’, 20% ‘uncertain’, and the rest ‘poor’). To calculate the score, multiply the percentage of the site zoned as A, B or C by a suggested ‘condition rating’ for each zone: Zone A (OK) = 1; Zone B (uncertain) = 0.5; Zone C (poor) = 0), and add the products.

Criteria for assessing condition of young revegetated sites The criteria developed by Kanowski et al (2008b) to guide the assessment of condition for young revegetation sites are provided in Table 9-1 and Table 9-2. These criteria are suitable for determining the short term success of revegetation and will be used to track the progress of revegetation works implemented through this Plan.

Table 9-1 Criteria for assessing the condition of young revegetated sites, before canopy closure

Rating/zone Status Canopy Ground Problem Tree Maintenance Cover Cover Weeds Survival requirements A OK. On track Developing Leaf litter, Not present High (at Routine to target well towards mulch or soil or minor least 90%) maintenance conditions target around trees; occurrence only canopy grass/weeds cover not suppressing tree growth B Uncertain if Not Grass/weed If present Moderate Extra effort will develop developing cover have the (60-90%) or required to fix towards towards sufficiently potential to patchy problems, target target dense to impede site additional conditions, canopy suppress development routine significant cover, growth of maintenance problems. outcomes planted trees are patchy C Poor. Major Poorly Dense cover May be Poor (less Major effort problems, developed, of common or than 60%) required to likely to fail unlikely to grass/weeds likely to address achieve which is impede site problems closure. likely to development strongly suppress tree growth

Criteria for assessment of condition of older revegetation sites Once site domination is achieved, slightly different criteria will be utilised to assess condition, including recruitment and specific targets for canopy cover. Table 9-2 below sets out proposed criteria for assessing condition of revegetation sites.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 9-3

Table 9-2 Criteria for assessing the condition of established sites (modified from Kanowski et al 2008b)

Rating/zone Status Canopy Ground Problem Recruitment Maintenanc Cover Cover Weeds e requirement s A OK. On track >70% of Mostly leaf Not present Numerous Routine to target target litter for or minor recruits of maintenance conditions canopy cover rainforest, occurrence native only native grass species cover for Eucalypt forest, woody debris and recruits B Uncertain if 50-70% of Mixed or If present Not many Extra effort will develop target patchy leaf have the recruits of required to towards canopy cover litter for potential to native fix problems, target rainforests, impede site species additional conditions. patchy grass development given routine Significant cover for location of maintenance problems. Eucalypt stage of forest and development bare soil ; exotic species may be common recruits C Poor. Major <50% target Mostly dense May be Very little Major effort problems, canopy cover grass or common or recruitment required to likely to fail weeds likely to of address impede site native problems development species and/ or recruitment dominated by exotic species

Frequency of Monitoring One of the main purposes of condition assessment is to detect a problem with a revegetation project before major effort is required to rectify it. Consequently, condition will be assessed quarterly for the first 2 years, biannually for the following 3 years and annually for the final five years. Monitoring will be carried out for a total of 10 years after planting.

Rapidly-developing young sites may need more frequent assessment, potentially three to four times a year.

To facilitate regular assessment, the methodology that has been developed is simple and rapid. Furthermore, when sites are being monitored frequently, there is an option to conduct a brief assessment of condition, when sites remain ‘on track’ towards target conditions.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 9-4

9.1.3 Long term Monitoring of Revegetation Sites Methodology Long-term monitoring of vegetation structure will be completed at a sub-set of rehabilitation sites, using a comprehensive assessment methodology. The methodology to be used for long term monitoring is based on protocols for monitoring the development of forest structure and plant species composition on revegetation sites. An existing toolkit has been developed explicitly for this purpose in rainforest landscapes by Kanowski et al. (2008b), and it is intended that this framework be adopted (with modification as required for forest type) as the primary long-term monitoring methodology at revegetation sites.

Structural attributes are directly correlated with the use of sites by wildlife and provide useful information on the development of revegetated sites. On-going survey and monitoring also provides data which can be used to estimate the carbon sequestered by revegetation sites.

Forest structure and floristic composition will be surveyed on two 50 x 20 m plots per site, as per Figure 9-2. The attributes to be monitored at each site are given in Appendix J of this document.

Figure 9-2 Site layout for monitoring/establishing benchmarks for forest structure (Kanowski et al 2008)

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 9-5

In some sites, it may be necessary to ‘bend’ or ‘break’ a transect at one or more points, or to alter the layout of plots. In such cases, the total area surveyed should be preserved. For example, in narrow sites it may be necessary to split each 50 x 20 m plot into two 50 x 10 m subplots (Figure 9-3), the first being the inner 50 x 10 m quadrate of the standard plot, and the second the remaining 50 x 10 m used to survey stems greater than 50 cm dbh (diameter of the stem at breast height, nominally set at 1.3 m from ground height). Variations on the standard layout will be clearly documented and drawn on a site map.

Figure 9-3 Variation to standard site layout (Kanowski et al 2008)

Determining Long-term Trends Kanowski et al. (2008b) have developed a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet “Monitoring toolkit forest structure.xls” to store, analyse and summarise data on forest structure collected using the methodology and proformas included in their toolkit for monitoring revegetation. The spreadsheet includes worksheets to store data from a baseline survey and up to eight monitoring surveys of a revegetated site; as well as worksheets to record data from surveys of up to five forest reference sites. The data entry worksheets are in a similar format to the survey proformas.

Each worksheet calculates the values of structural attributes from the data entered into it, using formulae. Note that some of the attributes can only be calculated if data are available for forest reference sites (e.g. the ‘ground cover index’ compares the similarity of ground cover in the revegetated site to forest reference sites).

From these data, the spreadsheet automatically graphs trends in attributes at a revegetated site over time, and compares these with the mean and range of the values observed in forest reference sites. The spreadsheet also estimates carbon sequestration in above-ground biomass.

Kanowski et al. (2008b) have also developed a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet “Monitoring toolkit floristic composition.xls” to provide a template for storing and analysing data from floristic surveys. When compared with data from forest reference sites, this information can be used to determine how closely revegetated sites resemble reference sites in plant species composition and to identify the species that are ‘missing’ from revegetated sites.

Analyses of floristic composition can be especially informative when combined with data on plant life-history attributes (such as life form, successional stage and dispersal vectors). For example, several studies have found that plants with small, fleshy fruits dominate recruitment in revegetated sites (Tucker and Murphy 1997; Neilan et al. 2006). Consequently, practitioners may need to deliberately add wind-dispersed and large-seeded plants to revegetated sites, if those sites are to approach target conditions (Tucker et al. 2004).

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 9-6

Frequency of monitoring Monitoring long-term trends using the methodology proposed here is labour intensive, with each transect requiring approximately 4 hours of intensive survey effort. Consequently, condition will be assessed annually at selected sites for a period of 10 years.

9.1.4 Monitoring of Giant Barred Frog The uptake of revegetation sites by the Giant Barred Frog will be monitored through the program of research completed by the FSCC, as documented in the Freshwater Species Conservation Centre Overview, (refer Section 7.4 of Appendix G), which specifically refers to the Giant Barred Frog.

9.2 Monitoring of In-stream Habitat Restoration 9.2.1 Background A range of frameworks are available for the assessment of in-stream habitat condition, including those established by AusRivAS, HABSCORE, Index of Stream Condition (Ladson and White 1999) and the Aquatic Habitat Assessment for Operation Plan Monitoring (Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Water, 2008). Each of these frameworks would be suitable (with appropriate amendments) for monitoring in-stream habitat attributes on the rehabilitation reaches, and the monitoring of those sites could be expanded with ease to accommodate such an approach.

However, as the primary method to be used in increasing in-stream habitat complexity is the re- introduction of wood to the system, a targeted monitoring approach which focuses on in-stream cover and subsequent development of in-stream habitat complexity is proposed to track the progress of rehabilitation works.

9.2.2 Methodology Monitoring Transects To set rehabilitation targets and enable monitoring of progress towards those targets, a series of reference sites will be required. Multiple reference sites will be established within reaches considered to be representative of high quality habitat within the catchment.

At each in-stream rehabilitation site, a permanent transect of 500m in length will be established. This transect will be surveyed at the outset of the rehabilitation program to determine baseline conditions and annually thereafter. On each transect, a variety of attributes will be recorded including presence of timber, rock, undercut banks, overhanging vegetation, small organic debris and percent cover of the wetted area covered for each. The following attributes will be recorded at each transect:

• The number of pools and depth of pools over a 500m transect; • Abundance of submerged and emergent logs using the zigzag transect method; • Extent and species composition of macrophyte beds; • Location, extent and condition of sand beaches along the 500m transect; • The number of metres of bank with overhanging riparian vegetation. Vegetation overhanging the wetted area within 1m of the water surface will be classed as in-stream cover. An estimate will be made of the percentage of stream bank within the survey site along which this feature is present. This will include trees and shrubs only; and • A cover estimate for rock will be obtained with reference to significant areas of rock ledges, crevices and large boulders.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 9-7

Calculating Cover Rating Simpson (1994) completed the most comprehensive assessment of stream habitat to date across the Mary River system, including seventy-nine sites on the Mary River and tributaries including Bouloomba Creek, Obi Obi Creek, Little Yabba Creek, Yabba Creek, Kandanga Creek and Six Mile Creek within, or upstream of the Project Area.

Simpson (1994) developed a Habitat Quality Index as a means of comparing sites in terms of a combination of variables intended to reflect relative condition of stream habitats. The in-stream cover rating developed by Simpson has particular utility in the context of this Plan, as there may be opportunities for comparison between the condition of proposed rehabilitation sites and Simpson’s sites on the Mary River, Yabba Creek and Kandanga Creek, all areas which will be targeted for rehabilitation.

Simpson’s Habitat Quality Index (more particularly the Cover Rating) will be employed to monitor progress of in-stream rehabilitation towards target condition. Data collected from the in-stream habitat monitoring transects will be utilised to calculate a cover rating, in accordance with the cover rating index developed by Simpson (1994). The cover rating incorporates percentage cover estimates for various categories of cover. Components of the cover rating are weighted as follows:

• Instream cover (IC) = (10 x log jams) + (9 x logs) + (9 x branch piles) + (8 x branches) + (8 x rock) • Bank cover (BC) = (10 x undercut banks) + (8 x overhanging vegetation) + (8 x canopy cover) • Cover diversity (CD) = number of cover types present

The range of computed values for IC, BC and CD will be scaled from 0-100, and the cover rating determined by the formula: Cover Rating = 6C+2BC+2CD. Final values will be scaled from 0-100. Each rehabilitation reach will be surveyed annually to determine changes in Cover Rating in accordance with the formulae described above.

9.2.3 Frequency of monitoring The condition of in-stream habitat complexity will be assessed annually at selected in-stream restoration sites. Monitoring will be carried out for a period of 10 years.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 9-8

10. REFERENCES

3D Environmental (2007) 'Ecological Surveys - Terrestrial Flora Study, Traveston Crossing Dam Project Mary River, Queensland.' Queensland Water Infrastructure. QWI, Brisbane.

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

Abernethy B. &, Rutherfurd I. D. (2000) The effect of riparian tree roots on the mass-stability of riverbanks Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 25: 921-937

Accad, A; Neldner, V.J; Wilson, B. A; and Niehus, R.E. (2008). Remnant Vegetation in Queensland. Analysis of remnant vegetation 1997-1999-2000-2001-2003-2005, including regional ecosystem information. Brisbane: Queensland Herbarium.

Alberts, E.E., Neibling, W.H. and Moldenhauer, W.C. (1981). Transport of sediments and phosphorus in runoff through cornstalk residue strips. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 45: 1177-1184.

Allen, G.R. 1989. Freshwater Fishes of Australia. T.F.H. Publications. Pp. 240.

Baillie, J. and Groombridge, B. (compilers and editors) 1996. 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Big Scrub Rainforest Landcare Group (2005) Subtropical Rainforest Restoration: A Practical Manual and Data Source for Landcare Groups, Land Managers and Rainforest Regenerators. Second Edition. Big Scrub Rainforest Landcare Group, Bangalow NSW.

Brooks, A. 2006, Design guideline for the reintroduction of wood into Australian streams, Land & Water Australia, Canberra.

Brooker, L.C. 2002. The application of focal species knowledge to landscape design in agricultural lands using the ecological neighbourhood as a template. Landscape and Urban Planning 60: 185-210

Brooker L., Lefroy, E., Ingram, J. and Atkins, L. 2002. Enhancing biodiversity values in the Latham Landcare District. A report commissioned by the World Wide Fund for Nature, Australia. CSIRO: Perth.

Brooks, S. G. and Kind, P.K. (2002). Ecology and demography of the Queensland lungfish (Neoceratodus fosteri) in the Burnett River, Queensland. Final Report prepared for the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

Cadwallader,P.L., 1978. Some causes of the decline in range and abundance of native fish in the Murray-Darling River system. Proc. Roy. Soc. Vic. 90. 211-224.

Cadwallader, P.L. and Backhouse, G.N. 1983. A guide to the freshwater fish of Victoria. Victorian Government Printing Office, Melbourne. 249 pp.

Campbell I. C, James K. R., Hart B. T. & Devereaux A. (1992) Auochthonous coarse particulate organic material in forest and pasture reaches of two south-east Australian streams. I. Litter accession. Freshwater Biology 27, 341-52.

Cann, J. (1998). Australian freshwater turtles. J. Cann and Beaumont Publishing: Singapore

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 10-1

Catterall, C. P., Kanowski, J. and Wardell-Johnson, G. W. (2008) Biodiversity and new forests: interacting processes, prospects and pitfalls of rainforest restoration. In: Living in a Dynamic Tropical Forest Landscape. (eds N. E. Stork and S. M. Turton). Blackwell, Carlton VIC, pp. 510-525.

Catterall, C. P., Kanowski, J., Wardell-Johnson, G., Proctor, H. C., Reis, T., Harrison, D. A. and Tucker, N. I. J. (2004) Quantifying the biodiversity values of reforestation: perspectives, design issues and outcomes in Australian rainforest landscapes. In Lunney, D. (ed.) Conservation of Australia's Forest Fauna. Second Edition. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Sydney NSW, pp 359-393.

Cogger, H.G., E.E. Cameron, R.A. Sadlier & P. Eggler (1993). The Action Plan for Australian Reptiles. Australian Nature Conservation Agency: Canberra

Davies P. E. & Nelson M. (1994) Relationships between riparian buffer widths and the effects of logging on stream habitat, invertebrate community composition and fish abundance. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 45: 1289 - 1305

Department of Natural Resources and Water (2008) Aquatic Habitat Assessment for Resource Operation PlanMonitoring.TechnicalReport.Website: http://www.nrw.qld.gov.au/water/monitoring/pdf/aquatic_habitat_assessment_method.pdf. Accessed 20 March 2009

Douglas, J.W., G.J. Gooley & B.A. Ingram (1994). Trout cod, Maccullochella macquariensis (Cuvier) (Pisces: Percichthyidae), Resource Handbook and Research and Recovery Plan. Page(s) 98. Fisheries Res. Inst., Snobs Creek. Dept Cons. & Nat. Res., Vic.

Doyle, R.C., Stanton, G.C. and Wolf, D.C. (1977). Effectiveness of forest and grass buffer filters in improving water quality of manure polluted runoff. Paper No. 77-2501, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2001) State Coastal Management Plan. Queensland Environmental Protection Agency.

Flakus, S. (2002) The ecology of the Mary River turtle, Elusor macrurus. MSc Thesis, University of Queensland.

Floyd, A. (1999) Natural succession in rainforest. pages 14-18 in Horton, S. (ed.) 1999. Rainforest Remnants: A Decade of Growth. Martin C’s Printshop, Lismore.

Floyd, A. (1990) Australian Rainforests in New South Wales. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, NSW.

Freebody, K. (2007) Rainforest revegetation in the uplands of the Australian Wet Tropics: The Eacham Shire experience with planting models, outcomes and monitoring issues. Ecological Management and Restoration 8: 140-143.

Freudenberger, D and Brooker, L. (2004). Development of the focal species approach for biodiversity conservation in the temperate agricultural zones of Australia Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 253–274, 2004.

Goosem, S. and Tucker, N. I. J. (1995) Repairing the Rainforest: Theory and Practice of Rainforest Reestablishment in north Queensland’s Wet Tropics. Wet Tropics Management Authority, Cairns Queensland.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 10-2

Groisman P. Ya., Karl T. R, Easterling D. R. , Knight R. W., Jamason P. F., Hennessy K. J., Suppiah R., Page C. M., Wibig J., Fortuniak K., Razuvaev V. N. , Douglas A., Førland E. and Zhai P.-M. (1999) Changes in the Probability of Heavy Precipitation: Important Indicators of Climatic Change Climatic Change 42:1

Grundon, N., Wright, J. and Irvine, T. (2002) Pelican Point Revegetation, Atherton Tableland: an example of a community participatory project – establishment and measuring post development success. Trees for the Evelyn and Atherton Tablelands (TREAT), Atherton QLD.

Hanson G. C., Groffman P. M., & Gold A. J., (1994) Denitrificaiton in Riparian Wetlands receiving high and low groundwater nitrate inputs. Journal of Environmental Quality 23: 917-922.

Harden G. I. Fox M. D., Fox B. J. (2004) Monitoring and assessment of restoration of a rainforest remnant at Wingham Brush, NSW. Austral Ecology 29 (5) pp. 489-507

Hatfield J. L., Mickelson S. K., Baker J. L., Arora K., Tierney D. P. & Peter C. J. (1995) Buffer Strips: landscape Modification to reduce offsite herbicide movement In. Clean Water, Clean Environment, 21st Century: Team Agriculture, Working to Protect Water Resources, Vol 1. St Joseph, MI. American Society of Agricultural Engineers.

Hennessy, K.J., Suppiah, R. and Page, C.M. (1999). Australian rainfall changes, 1910-1995. Australian Meteorological Magazine.48, 1-13. Hines, H. and South-east Queensland Threatened Frogs Recovery Team (2002). Recovery plan for stream frogs of south-east Queensland 2001-2005. Report to Environment Australia. Queensland Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane.

Hines, H., Mahony, M. and McDonald, K. 1999. An assessment of frog declines in wet subtropical Australia. Pp. 44-63 in Campbell, A. (ed.) Declines and Disappearances of Australian Frogs. Environment Australia, Canberra.

Hines,H., Newell, D., Clarke,J., Hero, J-M., Meyer, E. (2004). Mixophyes iteratus. In: IUCN 2008. 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 24 March 2009.

Hopkins, M.S., Kikkawa, J., Graham, A.W., Tracey, J.G. & Webb, L.J. 1977. An ecological basis for the management of rainforest. In: The Border Ranges: a land use conflict in regional perspective. Brisbane, Royal Society of Queensland. pp. 57-66.

Hydrobiology Pty. Ltd. (2007) Lungfish Study: Snapshot Survey of Lungfish in the Brisbane, North Pine and Mary River Systems. A report to Queensland Water Infrastructure Pty Ltd.

Ingram, G.J. and McDonald, K.R. (1993) An update on the decline of Queensland's frogs. Pp. 297-303 in Lunney, D. and Ayers, D. (eds) Herpetology in Australia. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney.

Johnson, J.W. (2001). Review of the draft lungfish report (Ecology and demographics of lungfish (Neoceratodus forsteri) and general fish communities in the Burnett River, Queensland with reference to the impacts of Walla Weir and future water infrastructure development, by St. Report for Burnett Water, 4 July 2001. Queensland: Queensland Museum.

Kanowski, J. and Catterall, C. P. (2007) Converting Stands of Camphor Laurel to Rainforest: What are the Costs and Outcomes of Different Control Methods? Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies, Griffith University. Website:

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 10-3

http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/75786/Camphor-conversion-factsheet- NRCMA-Final.pdf. Accessed 20 January 2009

Kanowski, J., Catterall, C. P., Wardell-Johnson, G. W., Proctor, H. and Reis, T. (2003) Development of forest structure on cleared rainforest land in eastern Australia under different styles of reforestation. Forest Ecology and Management 183: 265-280.

Kanowski, J., Catterall, C.P. and Neilan, W. (2008a) The potential value of weedy regrowth for rainforest restoration. Ecological Management and Restoration 9: 88-99.

Kanowski, J., Catterall, C. P. and Harrison, D. A. (2008b) Monitoring the outcomes of reforestation for biodiversity conservation. In: Living in a Dynamic Tropical Forest Landscape. (eds N. E. Stork and S. M. Turton). Blackwell, Carlton VIC, pp. 526-536.

Kanowski, J., Kooyman, R. M. and Catterall, C. P. (2008c) Dynamics and restoration of Australian tropical and subtropical rainforests. In: New Models for Ecosystem Dynamics and Restoration (eds R. Hobbs and K. Suding). Island Press, Washington DC, pp. 206-220.

Kanowski, J., Catterall, C. P., McKenna, S. and Jensen, R. (2008d) Impacts of cyclone Larry on the vegetation structure of timber plantations, restoration plantings and rainforest on the Atherton Tableland, Australia. Austral Ecology 33, 485–494.

Kanowski, J., Reis, T., Catterall, C. P. and Piper, S. (2006) Factors affecting the use of reforested sites by reptiles in cleared rainforest landscapes in tropical and subtropical Australia. Restoration Ecology 14: 67-76.

Kanowski, J. and Catterall, C. P. (2007) Monitoring Revegetation Projects for Biodiversity in Rainforest Landscapes. Toolkit Version 1, Revision 1. Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility Research Report Series. Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited, Cairns (52 pp.).

Karr J. R. and Schlosser I. J. (1977) Impact of Near Stream Vegetation and Stream Morphology on Water Quality and Stream Biota. Athens GA U.S. EPA Ecological Research Series (EPA- 60/3-77/097).

Hawdon, A.A., Keen, R., Post, D.A. and Wilkinson, N. (2008). Hydrological recovery of rangeland following cattle exclusion. Sediment Dynamics in Changing Environments (Proceedings of a symposium held in Christchurch, New Zealand, December 2008).Knowles, R., H.B. Hines, K. Thum, M. Mahony & M. Cunningham (1998). Oviposition of the barred frogs (Mixophyes species) in south-eastern Australia with implications for management.

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.

Kooyman R. M. (1996) Growing rainforest: rainforest restoration and regeneration : recommendations for the humid sub-tropical region of northern New South Wales and south east Queensland. Greening Australia – Brisbane.

Ladson, A. and White, L. (1999). Index of Stream Condition: reference manual. Melbourne, Department of Natural Resources and Environment.

Lambeck R.J. 1997. Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation Biology 11: 849–856.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 10-4

Latta, C & Latta, G (2006) Mary River Turtle Elusor macrurus photographic survey performed under Scientific Purposes Permit E4/001080/00/SAA. Unpublished report compiled for the Queensland Museum.

Lemckert, F. and Brassil, T. (2000) Movements and habitat use of the endangered Giant Barred River Frog (Mixophyes iteratus) and the implications for its conservation in timber production forests. In: Biological Conservation 96:177-184.

Lintermans, M. (2004). "Human assisted dispersal of alien freshwater fish in Australia." New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38: 481-501.

Lovett, S. & Price, P. (eds) 2007, Principles for Riparian Lands Management, Land & Water Australia, Canberra.

Lynch, J.A., Corbett, E.S., and Mussallem, K. (1985). Best management practices for controlling non-point source pollution on forested watersheds. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 40: 164-167.

Mahony, M., Knowles, R. and Pattinson, L. 1997. 6. Gold-eyed Barred Frog, Mixophyes iteratus. Pp. 78-83 in Ehmann, H. (ed.) Threatened Frogs of New South Wales: Habitats, Status and Conservation. Frog and Tadpole Study Group of NSW Inc., Sydney South, Australia.

Mallin, M.A., K.E. Williams, E.C. Esham, and R.P. Lowe (2000) ‘Effect of Human Development on Bacteriological Water Quality in Coastal Watersheds’ Ecological Applications 10(4): 1047- McKergow, L.A., Prosser, I.P., Grayson, R.B., and Heiner, D. (2004). Performance of grass and rainforest riparian buffers in the wet tropics, Far North Queensland. 2. Water quality. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 42: 485-498.

Merrick, J. R. and Schmida, G. R. (1984). Australian Freshwater Fishes - Biology and Management. Griffin, Netley (South Australia). 409 pp.

Murcia, C., 1995. Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10, 58–62.

Murphy, M. L. and Koski, K. V. (1989) Input and depletion of woody debris in Alaska streams and implications for streamside management. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 9: 427-436.

Muscutt, A. D, Harris G. L., Bailey S. W., & Davies D. B. (1993) Buffer Zones to Improve Water Quality. A review of their potential use in UK Agriculture. Agriculture Ecosystems, Ecosystems and Environment 45: 59-77.

Neilan, W., Catterall, C. P., Kanowski, J. and McKenna, S. (2006) Do frugivorous birds assist rainforest succession in weed dominated oldfield regrowth of subtropical Australia? Biological Conservation 129: 393-407.

Owens, L. B., Edwards, W. M., and vanKeuren, R. W. (1996). "Sediment Losses from a Pastured Watershed Before and After Streambank Fencing." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 51(1), 90-95.

Owens, L. B., Edwards, W. M., and vanKeuren, R. W. (1997). "Runoff and Sediment Losses Resulting from Winter Feeding on Pastures." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 52(3), 194-198.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 10-5

Patterson, R.D., Kraschnefski, R.T. and Hines, H.B. (2002) Conservation of the Giant Barred Frog Mixophyes iteratus and the Cascade Treefrog Litoria pearsoniana at Belli Creek in South-east Queensland. In: Nattrass et al. (ed) (2002). Frogs in the Community: Proceedings of the Brisbane Symposium 13-14 February 1999. Queensland Frog Society, Brisbane.

Platts, W. S., and Nelson, R. L. (1985). "Stream Habitat and Fisheries Response to Livestock Grazing and In-Stream Improvement Structures, Big Creek, Utah." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 41, 374-379.

Platts, W. S., and Wagstaff, F. J. (1984). "Fencing to Control Livestock Grazing on Riparian Habitats Along Streams: Is It a Viable Alternative?" North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 4, 266-272.

Ranganath, S.C., W.C. Hession,T.M. Wynn (2009) Livestock exclusion influences on riparian vegetation, channel morphology, and benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 64: 33-42.

Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.

Robertson A. I. and Cook D. A. (1999) Relationships between riverine fish and woody debris: implications for lowland rivers. Marine and Freshwater Research 50(8) 941 - 953

Rowland, S.J. (1985). Aspects of the biology and artificial breeding of the Murray cod, Maccullochella peelii and the Eastern Freshwater Cod, M. ikei sp. Phd Thesis: Macquarie University, Sydney

Simberloff, D. 1998 Small and declining populations. In Conservation science and action (ed. W. J. Sutherland), pp. 116–134. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Scientific Ltd.

Simpson, 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, south-eastern Queensland. Qld Department of Primary Industries, Fisheries Division.

Simpson, R. & Jackson, P. (2000). The Mary River Cod Research and Recovery Plan. Environment Australia Endangered Species Program. Environment Australia: Canberra

Society for Ecological Restoration (2004) The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration. Society for Ecological Restoration, USA. Website www.ser.org. Accessed 20 January 2009.

Streatfield, C. (1999) Spatial Movements of Mixophyes iteratus and M. fasciolatus in southeast Queensland. Thesis. School of Environmental and Applied Sciences, Griffith University Gold Coast.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2003j). Commonwealth Listing Advice on Neoceratodus forsteri (Australian Lungfish). Website: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi- bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=67620. Accessed 31 march 2009.

Tucker A.D. (1999). Cumulative Effects of Dams and Weirs on Freshwater Turtles: Fitzroy, Kolan, Burnett and Mary Catchments. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service. Unpublished report to the Queensland Department of Natural Resources.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 10-6

Tucker, N. I. J. and Murphy, T. (1997) The effect of ecological rehabilitation on vegetation recruitment: some observations from the Wet Tropics of north Queensland. Forest Ecology and Management 99: 133-152.

Tucker, N. I. J., Wardell-Johnson, G., Catterall, C. P. and Kanowski, J. (2004) Agroforestry and biodiversity: Improving the outcomes for conservation in tropical north-eastern Australia. In: Agroforestry and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Landscapes (eds G. Schroth, G. Fonseca, C. A. Harvey, C. Gascon, H. Vasconcelos and A. M. N. Izac), Island Press, Washington DC, pp. 431-452.

Tucker, A.D., Priest, T., Guarino, E. & Couper, P. (2000). Turtle biodiversity in regard to regional conservation planning: additional recommendations for mitigation in Cumulative Effects of Dams and Weirs on Freshwater Turtles: Fitzroy, Kolan, Burnett and Mary Catchments. Pages 105-130. Report for Queensland Parks & Wildlife Service, Bundaberg. van Kampen, T., S.P. Emerick & D. Parkes (2003). Increasing the Survivorship of the Mary River Turtle. Tiaro District of Southeast Queensland October 2002 - March 2003. Unpublished Report, Greening Australia, Tiaro and District Landcare Group Inc. and Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service

Wardell-Johnson, G. W., Kanowski, J., Catterall, C. P., McKenna, S., Piper, S. and Lamb, D. (2005) Rainforest timber plantations and the restoration of plant biodiversity in tropical and subtropical Australia. In: Reforestation in the Tropics and Subtropics of Australia Using Rainforest Tree Species (eds. P. D. Erskine, D. Lamb, and M. Bristow). Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), Canberra and Rainforest CRC, Cairns QLD, pp. 162-182.

Webb, L.J. (1959) Physiognomic Classification of Australian Rain Forests Blackwell Scientific Publications Oxford 1959 Wraps 8vo, pp. (551) - 570, b/w plates, light crease to centre all Article from the 'Journal of Ecology' No. 47, October.

Winter J.W., Atherton R.G., Bell F.C. and Pahl L.I. 1991. Distributions of selected north-eastern Australian rainforest animals. Pp. 155-175 in G. Werren and P. Kershaw (Eds). The Rainforest Legacy: Australian National Rainforest Study. Volume 2 - Flora and Fauna of the Rainforests. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Wikum D. A. and Shanholtzer F. G. (1978) Application of the Braun-Blanquet cover-abundance scale for vegetation analysis in land development studies Environmental Management 2, 4: 323-329

Woodford, R. (2000) Converting a dairy farm back to rainforest: the Rocky Creek Dam Story. Ecological Management and Restoration 1: 83-92.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page 10-7

APPENDIX A CURRENT STATUS OF FOUR NES SPECIES IN THE MARY CATCHMENT

A.1 Background Each of the four NES species considered by this HRP is considered to be threatened under State and Federal legislation and is subject to a range of ongoing threatening processes. As agreed by the Scientific Advisers, and the CSIRO, the general trend observed or inferred for each of these species is one of decline, which is directly associated with a reduction in the extent and quality of habitat.

The following sections discuss the status of each species in the Mary River catchment, with reference to threats and population size if known.

A.2 Mary River Turtle, Elusor macrurus The Mary River Turtle has suffered from a very low level of recruitment for three to four decades (Flakus, 2002). Historically this pressure was imposed by unsustainable levels of egg harvesting, with approximately 12 000 eggs per year collected commercially from the banks of the Mary River between Tiaro and Gympie for a period of twelve years (1962 to 1974). Predation of nests is now considered the major threat to the long-term viability of the species (EPA, 2007a; DEW, 2007a).

Baillie and Groombridge (1996) found that the Mary River Turtle qualified for listing as an Endangered species under the framework established by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) due to a combination of factors, namely that the extent of occurrence of the species is less than 500km2, the population is restricted to a single catchment and a continuing decline has been observed, inferred or projected in the extent and quality of habitat.

The population size of the Mary River Turtle is currently not well understood; however, studies have indicated a dramatic decline in recruitment at the traditional nesting banks near Tiaro. Flakus (2002) found very low levels of recruitment between 1997 and 2002. In 1997, 17% of nests monitored were destroyed by foxes within 24 hours of laying, a further 8% were destroyed by goannas, and eggs in the remaining 75% of nests disappeared, although the cause of that disappearance is unknown. In 1998, 22% were destroyed by goannas, 33% by unknown agents, and the remaining 45% of nests were removed for artificial incubation, and the hatchlings subsequently released. In 2002, nests which were caged the morning after eggs were laid to protect them from predators resulted in around 78% of protected eggs producing hatchlings. However, foxes, dogs and goannas destroyed many of the nests that were not found in time to be caged (van Kampen et al. 2003).

The habitat of the Mary River Turtle has been affected by soil erosion, and water pollution (Cogger et al. 1993; Cann 1998; Flakus 2002). Water quality in the vicinity of Gympie is affected by discharge from a sewerage treatment plant, which increases nutrients and decreases oxygen in the water. Meatworks effluent, pesticide and herbicide runoff also affect the river bank and water quality in sections of the Mary River (EPA 2001).

The Mary River Turtle is also affected by damage to the riparian vegetation and to the structure of the riverbank (see Figure A-1 and Figure A-2 below). The banks of the Mary River are used for sand and gravel mining. There were 13 legal mines and a number of illegal mines in 2002, including a large operation at Tiaro (Flakus 2002). Sand mining results in the loss of sand banks, stream bank erosion and siltation of the water, and the industry is prevalent in areas which were formerly the most productive nesting sites of the Mary River Turtle (Flakus 2002).

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page A-1

Figure A-10-1 Severe Bank erosion on the Mary River

Figure A-10-2 Existing sand extraction in close proximity to dam wall site

Much of the vegetation surrounding the lower and middle sections of the Mary River has been cleared for agriculture and cattle grazing (Flakus 2002; Tucker 1999). The investigations for the EIS identified that 85% of the study area comprises cleared grazing, residential and agricultural land. Flakus (2002) found that cattle trampled all nesting sand banks monitored, but in these cases the eggs were buried deep enough to escape damage.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page A-2

Weed infestation has caused sand banks to become unsuitable for nesting. For example, one traditional nest site of the Mary River Turtle at Gunalda, known to egg collectors between 1962 and 1974, is now covered by woody weeds. Tucker et al. (2000) noted that weeds such as Para Grass (Urochloa mutica), Lantana (Lantana camara), and Thistles (species in the family Asteraceae) block the access of turtles to nesting banks. Weeds growing on the nesting banks can also kill eggs. Two nests monitored by van Kampen et al. (2003) contained eggs that were penetrated by the roots of couch grass.

A.3 Mary River Cod, Maccullochella peelii mariensis Historical surveys by the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries indicate that Cod numbers in the creek systems are very low. The total estimated number of Cod from Tinana- Coondoo, Six Mile, and Obi Obi Creeks is less than 600 individuals; however the total population in the river system is likely to be considerably larger than this. Although there is insufficient reliable data to make a precise estimate of the size of the cod population in the Mary catchment, the distribution of Cod within the Mary River system appears to have declined.

Simpson and Jackson (2001) considered that degradation of habitat and overfishing has contributed to the decline of the Mary River cod. Riparian vegetation along the Mary River system has experienced significant disturbance from clearing for crops, pastures and grazing and bank disturbance by cattle. This has lead to increased sediment loads into the river system along with changes to other water quality attributes. Extensive filling of pool habitats and the loss of riparian vegetation (providing shade and bank stability) have been cited as a likely cause for the absence of the cod from parts of the Mary River system (Simpson, 1994).

Other direct and indirect impacts on cod populations from habitat modification are suspected, however these are unable to be quantified. Such impacts are related to the loss of riparian vegetation including changes to water temperature, flow regime and aquatic productivity (including loss of certain macroinvertebrates and other food items). The removal of large woody debris from in-stream habitats is also inferred to have an impact on potential breeding sites for the Mary River Cod (Cadwallader 1978; Simpson and Jackson 2001).

Overfishing of Mary River Cod has been implicated in the presumed decline of the cod within the Mary River system. The cod was an important food source for early European settlers in south-east Queensland (Lintermans 2004) and Rowland (1985) noted that large numbers of the cod were fished from the Mary River in the late 1800s and early 1900s using several methods including gelignite, nets and set lines. Simpson and Jackson (2001) suggest that recreational fishing for the Mary River Cod is still occurring within Mary River tributaries, despite a ban on removal of cod from the Mary River system.

A.4 Giant Barred Frog, Mixophyes iteratus Throughout its range, the Giant Barred Frog generally occurs in the lower reaches of streams (i.e. higher order streams) in association with lowland rainforest and wet sclerophyll forest, and adjacent farmland (Ingram and McDonald 1993). Populations have been found in disturbed areas with riparian strips including cattle farms and regenerating logged areas, however, the long term viability of these populations is unknown. This pattern of distribution is repeated in the Mary River Valley.

The distribution of the Giant Barred Frog in the Mary River catchment remained very poorly known until recently. Prior to 2004, the frog had only been described from the Conondale Range downstream to Kenilworth, although populations are now known at Six Mile Creek and further north (Hines et al., 2004).

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page A-3

Despite recent observations, the population size and structure in the Mary River catchment is generally unable to be quantified. Goldingay, Newell and Graham (1999) reported that the density of populations in far northern New South Wales (NSW) was relatively low with an average abundance of 4.2 individuals per 100m of stream transect between 1997 and 1998 and an average of 3.4 individuals over the same transects in 1999. The survey results from the EIS suggest that populations are small and are consistent with observations of population size in NSW. The Giant Barred Frog appears to be concentrated within the eastern tributaries of the Mary River rather than the river itself. The frog is especially prevalent on Belli Creek, Happy Jack Creek and Skyring Creek with only two records from the Mary River. Within the western tributaries, the frog was only recorded from Coonoon-Gibber Creek.

Potential threats to Giant Barred Frog populations are not well known, however, Mahony et al (1997) note that habitat loss and degradation in the form of clearing of upper catchments and water pollution are considered to be threatening processes. The potential impacts from other threatening processes such as chytrid fungus infection, water quality and flow changes, introduction of exotic predators and competitors, cattle and weed invasion are not known (Hines et al., 1999).

The species has experienced significant population declines in the north and south of its range during the late 1980s (Ingram and McDonald 1993; Mahoney 1993). Dramatic declines have been observed in the Sydney Basin and it no longer occurs in the Blue Mountains (White 2008). In SEQ, surveys have failed to locate the species in historical sites in the Bunya Mountains, Conondale Range, Cunningham’s Gap and Main Range (Hines et al. 1999). The causes of this and similar declines in other frogs of SEQ remain unknown, however current research is examining the possibility that disease may have caused these declines.

A.5 Queensland Lungfish, Neoceratodus forsteri The Queensland Lungfish is generally accepted as being restricted to the Burnett and Mary River systems with introduced populations surviving within the Brisbane and North Pine River systems. It is not known with certainty that these latter two waterways had no lungfish prior to the recorded introductions (Kemp, Source: http://www.annekempslungfish.com/lungfish_habitat.html accessed 29/05/2009), but that scenario seems most likely. Natural populations occur within the main channels of the Burnett and Mary Rivers, which are subject to several impoundments (i.e. dams and weirs) along each river. The Commonwealth Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) noted that the total Lungfish population size is thought to be greater than 10,000 mature individuals (2003).

Estimates of population size and structure within the Mary River were generally unknown prior to studies completed for the EIS, with the most significant study in the Mary River Catchment having been Kind (2002) which focused mainly on movements and habitat preferences. Hydrobiology (2007) observed 51 adults at 8 sites within the Mary River and Yabba Creek while Ecotone Environmental Services, commissioned to undertake an assessment of Mary River Turtle and Southern Snapping Turtle, noted frequent sightings during field surveys (EES, 2007).

The Lungfish is a very slow growing species, probably reaching sexual maturity at around 15 years (Brooks and Kind, 2002) and successful recruitment is sporadic (Hydrobiology, 2007). Therefore, the species is particularly susceptible to anthropogenic disturbances. Habitat loss as a result of impoundments along major rivers has been cited as a possible threat to the Lungfish, however there is some debate surrounding the level of impact (or possible benefit) of impoundments on Lungfish feeding and breeding areas (Hydrobiology, 2007).

Like the Mary River cod, Lungfish are also potentially threatened by exotic and translocated fishes. Exotic fish can prey on eggs and young and compete with adults for breeding habitat.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page A-4

Widespread clearing of riverbank vegetation along the Mary River has already reduced habitat for Lungfish, and they are also threatened by erosion and sedimentation, sand and gravel extraction and associated declines in water quality. Clearing also increases the damage caused by floods and removes cover that Lungfish use to prevent themselves from being displaced by fast-flowing floodwater (Kind, 2002).

A.6 Summary It is agreed by the Scientific Advisers that a number of threatenening process have been the major factors contributing to the decline of all four four NES species.

Through the protection of existing riparian habitat, revegetation of non-remnant riparian communities and extension of habitat linkages, this HRP will ultimately improve ecosystem function and landscape connectivity, and increase the extent of suitable habitat for the four NES species.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page A-5

APPENDIX B HABITAT ASSESSMENT AND OFFSET METRICS, MARY RIVER TURTLE

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page B-1

B.1 Critical Habitat Requirements High quality habitat for the Mary River Turtle contains deep (>3m) pools, an abundance of submerged and emergent logs, snags or substantial macrophyte beds, sand beaches devoid of vegetation (but protected) nearby and flowing, well oxygenated streams with riffles.

Like other turtles with cloacal respiration, the Mary River Turtle occurs in flowing, well-oxygenated sections of streams. Its habitat consists of riffles (particularly productive parts of a river that are shallow with fast-flowing, aerated water) and shallow stretches alternating with deeper, flowing pools. Limpus (2008) identified that Mary River Turtles are present in all existing impoundments within the Mary River catchment except Borumba Dam (understood to be outside the natural distribution limits). Limited data on juveniles suggest that they occur in rocky areas with sand or gravel on the river bed, in a variety of water depths (S. Flakus pers. comm. 2003) For example, a hatchling was found at a crossing in 10cm of water by Latta and Latta (2006). Adults are usually found in areas with underwater shelter, such as sparse to dense macrophyte cover, submerged logs and rock crevices. They bask on logs and rocks (Flakus 2002; S. Flakus, pers. comm. 2003). Some turtles have also been captured at sites with little aquatic vegetation or submerged logs (Cann 1998). The species can occur in depths ranging from less than a metre to more than 5 m (S. Flakus pers. comm. 2003).

B.2 Extent of Habitat in the Project Area The Mary River Turtle is widely distributed throughout the catchment. Critical nesting areas are located downstream of the proposed dam wall around Tiaro. Although nesting has been recorded within the proposed impoundment, the long term viability of the population is dependent on increased recruitment at key breeding sites downstream.

Habitat critical to the survival of this species is traditional nest sites near Tiaro. Historical records strongly suggest that the Mary River Turtle is faithful to traditional nest sites that the same females use each year. Nesting is concentrated on a small number of sand banks. For example, up to 2,000 eggs each season were collected from four particular nesting sand banks near Tiaro, indicating that more than a hundred females nested on these (Cann 1998; Flakus 2002). There were very productive sandbanks on three properties near Tiaro, and another upstream from Gundiah (Emery's Bridge). There were some turtle nests found below the bridge at Reibel’s Crossing near Gunalda. Only 100 to 200 eggs were collected from the less productive nesting areas. Flakus (2002) found up to ten individuals nesting on sandbanks near Tiaro between 1997 and 1999. In 2002, Van Kampen et al. (2003) found 36 nests at these major nesting banks at Redbank Road, near Tiaro.

B.3 Habitat Suitability Criteria The following habitat suitability criteria have been developed to enable weighting of the significance of habitat lost and/or modified as a result of the proposal to inform the calculation of residual habitat impact and subsequently offsets required for net conservation benefit.

The criteria have been developed with reference to the Tiaro Landcare Mary River Turtle nesting bank identification summary report (2008) which ranked sediment deposits in terms of nesting potential as known, highly suitable, suitable or possible. The locations of known nest sites were used as a basis for calculating the extent of habitat of the highest suitability for this species, with the known nest site and areas within 1km upstream and downstream ranked highest.

In terms of broad-scale habitat associations, Hydrobiology (2007) reported that the eastern tributaries (Belli Creek, Skyring Creek and Coles Creek) were characterised by narrow, incised streams dominated by silt-clay sediments, dense riparian cover (and consequently, dense leaf litter and large woody debris), turbid, low oxygen concentrations and, in some instances, elevated

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page B-2

conductivity linked to groundwater inputs. Macrophytes were often absent from these sites due to turbid conditions and dense shading by riparian vegetation. These tributaries are not included in calculations of residual habitat impact for the Mary River Turtle.

Three classes of habitat for the Project area are proposed, based on the presence/absence of turtle nesting records, records of non-breeding individuals and connectivity value for all other reaches of stream. Habitat suitability criteria are presented in Table B-1 below.

Table B-1 Habitat Suitability Criteria for Mary River Turtle

Habitat Suitability Attributes Suitability Weighting Highest River reach or tributary known to support nest sites of the 1.0 Mary River Turtle and areas 1km upstream and downstream of the nest site location. Moderately suitable Areas considered highly suitable or suitable for nesting by 0.7 the Mary River Turtle (Tiaro and District Landcare 2008) and areas 1km upstream and downstream of the nest site location. Lowest Areas of open water with no associated suitable nest 0.4 sites.

B.4 Extent of Habitat in the Project Area Table B-2 below lists the extent of high, medium and low suitability habitat within the Project area for the Mary River Turtle based on the classification of each major tributary and the Mary River in accordance with the criteria described above.

Table B-2 Extent of High, medium and low quality habitat in the Project area

Habitat Suitability Stream length within Project Associated Remnant area (km) Vegetation (ha) Highest 9.69 6.57 Moderately suitable 20.16 21.67 Lowest 6.67 3.14 TOTAL 36.52 31.39

Of the total 36.5 km of the Mary River within the project area, approximately 26% is considered to represent highest suitability habitat for the Mary River Turtle, 55% is considered of moderate suitability and the balance is considered to be of lowest suitability.

B.5 Calculating Residual Habitat Impact There is only one species specific offset policy currently operating in Queensland (Offsets for Net Benefits to Koalas and Koala Habitat). The focus of that policy is impacts on the quantity, quality and connectivity of habitat – referred to as Residual Habitat Impact (RHI). The methodology developed for calculated of RHI for the Koala and subsequently the area of offset required for net conservation benefit has been modified to assist in the calculation of offset targets in this Strategy.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page B-3

To calculate residual habitat impact:

• RHI = Area of loss (in hectares or stream length) x suitability weighting x duration weighting; • Suitability weighting = 0.4 (low suitability), 0.7 (medium), 1.0 (high); and • Duration weighting = 0.5 (temporary, for riparian vegetation to be replaced through revegetation), 1.0 (permanent, for loss of stream length).

The longer the duration of loss the higher the RHI. Any loss of vegetation that is to be re-established within three years of clearing of vegetation and landform that will provide equivalent habitat when regrown is considered only a temporary loss. It is included in the calculation of RHI with a duration weighting of 0.5, whereas a duration weighting of 1.0 is applied to all permanent loss.

Whilst the Koala Offset Policy contains provisions relating to timelag, no multiplier has been included in the formulae developed for this HRP. Whereas the Koala Offset Policy assigns a timelag multiplier of x2 for rehabilitated areas, the metrics applied in this HRP assign a timelag weighting of 1. As there will be no time-lag between the inundation of the impoundment, and the availability (and assumed uptake) of habitat for the aquatic species (i.e., the tributaries and Mary River Channel already provide habitat, and the impoundment will also provide habitat), this is considered a reasonable and practical approach. In contrast, vegetation which provides suitable habitat for the koala needs to be well established before it is able to provide the necessary habitat attributes to support koala populations (e.g. trees of sufficient size to support its body weight and foliage consumption).

The multiplication factor of 1.5 is derived from the Queensland Government Offset Policy for the Koala (Offsets for Net Benefit to Koalas and Koala Habitat, 2006, Environmental Protection Agency). The same multiplier is applied to the loss of Essential Habitat under the Queensland Vegetation Management Framework. The Offset ratio applied to Essential Habitat is 1.5 times the area of habitat lost, as defined by the Policy for Vegetation Management Offsets (NRW 2007), on the basis that the offset is provided in the same subregion.

B.6 Residual Habitat Impact Table B-3 below presents residual habitat impact calculations for the Mary River Turtle, expressed as kilometres of stream impacted and hectares of riparian vegetation inundated at Full Supply Level.

The formula used to calculate RHI for the Mary River Turtle differs for stream length and associated riparian vegetation. For stream length, the loss has been assumed to be permanent, and the RHI calculation includes a duration weighting of 1. For associated riparian vegetation, the duration weighting used in 0.5, because the loss will be temporary in nature.

Table B-3 Residual Habitat Impact Calculations for Mary River Turtle

Habitat Suitability Habitat units Residual Habitat Associated Residual Habitat (weighted) impacted Impact (km) riparian Impact (ha) (km) vegetation impacted (ha) High 9.69 9.69 6.57 3.2 Medium 20.16 14.11 21.67 7.58 Low 6.67 2.66 3.14 0.62 TOTAL 26.46 11.4

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page B-4

B.7 Required Value of the Rehabilitation Package The target value of the rehabilitation for the purpose of this package is 1.5 times the value of the RHI for that proportion of an offset package that comprises high quality habitat measures.

The multiplication factor of 1.5 is derived from the Queensland Government Offset Policy for the Koala (Offsets for Net Benefit to Koalas and Koala Habitat, 2006, Environmental Protection Agency). The same multiplier is applied to the loss of Essential Habitat under the Queensland Vegetation Management Framework. The Offset ratio applied to Essential Habitat is 1.5 times the area of habitat lost, as defined by the Policy for Vegetation Management Offsets (NRW 2007), on the basis that the offset is provided in the same subregion.

To be classified as being of high quality for the purposes of this Strategy, habitat measures must be within the same meta-population as the development impact and involve improving habitat values through rehabilitation of existing vegetation or rehabilitation of cleared areas.

The net benefit equation is therefore:

Required value of offset package = 1.5 x RHI x Proportion of high quality habitat measures.

In this case 1.5 x 26.46km = 39.69km for stream length; and

1.5 x 11.4ha = 17.1ha for associated riparian vegetation.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page B-5

APPENDIX C HABITAT ASSESSMENT AND OFFSET METRICS, MARY RIVER COD

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page C-1

C.1 Critical Habitat Requirements Mary River Cod occur in a variety of habitat types within the Mary River system, from high gradient, rocky, upland streams, to large, slow-flowing pools in lowland areas. Anecdotal accounts by anglers and landowners often describe the ideal cod habitat as comprising deep, shaded, slow flowing pools with plenty of snags and log-piles. Similar habitat types are utilised by the closely related Murray Cod and Trout Cod in the Murray River system (Cadwallader and Backhouse 1983; Douglas et al. 1994).

C.2 Extent of Habitat in the Project Area Simpson (1994) described the habitats occupied by cod in the Mary River system. Six Mile Creek and Tinana-Coondoo Creek, which are considered the best remaining areas for Cod, provide abundant in-stream timber and are heavily shaded by overhanging vegetation compared to many other parts of the Mary system. Streambed substrates are usually fine sand or mud. Conversely, Cod habitats in Obi Obi Creek are deep and rocky, with little in-stream timber or overhanging vegetation.

C.3 Habitat Suitability Criteria Detailed habitat mapping surveys were conducted by Hydrobiology (2007) within the Project area to characterise the baseline environmental conditions of the impoundment footprint and upper catchment area and to identify the areas potential importance as habitat for threatened aquatic taxa including the Mary River Cod.

The habitat mapping was based on the use of rapid survey techniques. Two field staff traversed approximately 5 – 8km of river reach per day by canoe, during which physical aquatic habitat features were mapped and geo-referenced by GPS, macrophyte community features were recorded and targeted angling for Mary River Cod was conducted. Geo-referenced digital photos were captured for all representative reaches and field note records made concerning the presence of a range of habitat features including:

• Physical habitat setting i.e. pool, run or riffle; • Water depth; • Bank failure occurrences; • Presence of undercut banks; • Presence of overhanging vegetation; • Presence of individual snags and snag piles; and • Macrophyte community features.

Mapping unit data was subsequently generated from the field observations for each geo-referenced pool, run and riffle. The choice of recorded and mapped habitat features was based on literature references (Simpson 1994) to what constituted important features for the EVR (Endangered, Vulnerable or Rare) taxa of interest including Mary River Cod. To produce a map of “Good Cod Habitat” a methodology was developed in which the presence of the following features resulted in a reach unit being recognised as good cod habitat:

• Depth > 2m; • Presence of snags (either branch or log piles); - Presence of outcropping bed rock; - Contiguous Overhanging Vegetation;

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page C-2

- Cod Capture / Observation; - Not a failing bank; and - Open water dominated.

For each ‘Good Cod Habitat’ feature recorded at each reach unit, a point was awarded, whereas exotic macrophyte dominance resulted in a point being subtracted from a reach unit.

The following habitat suitability criteria have been developed to enable weighting of the significance of habitat lost and/or modified as a result of the proposal to inform the calculation of residual habitat impact and subsequently offsets required for net conservation benefit.

Table C-1 Habitat Suitability Criteria, Mary River Cod

Habitat Suitability Attributes Suitability Weighting Highest Mary River: Habitat classified as ideal, excellent of very good 1.0 by Hydrobiology (2007). Tributaries:of tributary fringed by remnant vegetation. Moderately suitable Mary River: Habitat classified as good or moderate by 0.7 Hydrobiology (2007). Tributaries:tributary fringed by regrowth riparian vegetation. Lowest Mary River: Habitat classified as poor, very poor or extremely 0.4 poor by Hydrobiology 2007. Tributaries:tributaries with no fringing riparian vegetation.

C.4 Extent of Habitat in the Project Area Table C-2 below lists the extent of high, medium and low suitability habitat within the Project area for the Mary River Cod based on the classification of each major tributary and the Mary River in accordance with the criteria described above.

Table C-2 Extent of High, medium and low quality habitat impacted

Habitat Suitability Stream length within Project Associated Riparian area Vegetation Highest 17.7 91 Moderately suitable 12 52 Lowest 21.75 33 TOTAL 51.45km 176ha

C.5 Calculating Residual Habitat Impact There is only one species specific offset policy currently operating in Queensland (Offsets for Net Benefits to Koalas and Koala Habitat). The focus of that policy is impacts on the quantity, quality and connectivity of habitat – referred to as Residual Habitat Impact (RHI).The methodology developed for calculated of RHI for the Koala and subsequently the area of offset required for net conservation benefit has been modified to assist in the calculation of offset targets in this Strategy.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page C-3

To calculate residual habitat impact:

• RHI = Area of loss (in hectares or stream length) x suitability weighting x duration weighting; • Suitability weighting = 0.4 (low suitability), 0.7 (medium), 1.0 (high); and • Duration weighting = 0.5 (temporary, for riparian vegetation to be replaced through revegetation), 1.0 (permanent, for loss of stream length).

The longer the duration of loss the higher the RHI. Any loss of vegetation that is to be re-established within three years of clearing to vegetation and landform that will provide equivalent habitat when regrown is considered only a temporary loss. It is included in the calculation of RHI with a duration weighting of 0.5, whereas a duration weighting of 1.0 is applied to all permanent loss.

Whilst the Koala Offset Policy contains provisions relating to timelag, no multiplier has been included in the formulae developed for this HRP. Whereas the Koala Offset Policy assigns a timelag multiplier of x2 for rehabilitated areas, the metrics applied in this HRP assign a timelag weighting of 1. As there will be no time-lag between the inundation of the impoundment, and the availability (and assumed uptake) of habitat for the aquatic species (i.e., the tributaries and Mary River Channel already provide habitat, and the impoundment will also provide habitat), this is considered a reasonable and practical approach. In contrast, vegetation which provides suitable habitat for the koala needs to be well established before it is able to provide the necessary habitat attributes to support koala populations (e.g. trees of sufficient size to support its body weight and foliage consumption).

The longer the duration of loss the higher the RHI. Any loss of vegetation that is to be re-established within three years of clearing to vegetation and landform that will provide equivalent habitat when regrown is only considered a temporary loss. It is included in the calculation of RHI with a duration weighting of 0.5, whereas a duration weighting of 1.0 is applied to all permanent loss.

C.6 Residual Habitat Impact Table C-3 below presents residual habitat impact calculations for the Mary River Cod, expressed as kilometres of stream impacted and hectares of riparian vegetation inundated at FSL.

The formula used to calculate RHI for the Mary River Cod differs for stream length and associated riparian vegetation. For stream length, the loss has been assumed to be permanent, and the RHI calculation includes a duration weighting of 1. For associated riparian vegetation, the duration weighting used in 0.5, because the loss will be temporary in nature.

Table C-3 Residual Habitat Impact Calculations for Mary River Cod

Habitat Suitability (weighted) Stream length Residual Associated Residual impacted (km) Habitat Impact riparian Habitat Impact (km) vegetation (ha) impacted (ha) High 17.7 17.7 91 45.5 Medium 12 8.4 52 18.2 Low 21.75 8.7 33 6.6 TOTAL 51.45 km 34.8km 176 ha 70.3ha

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page C-4

C.7 Required Value of the Rehabilitation Package The target value of the rehabilitation for the purpose of this Strategy package is 1.5 times the value of the RHI for that proportion of an offset package that comprises high quality habitat measures.

The multiplication factor of 1.5 is derived from the Queensland Government Offset Policy for the Koala (Offsets for Net Benefit to Koalas and Koala Habitat, 2006, Environmental Protection Agency). The same multiplier is applied to the loss of Essential Habitat under the Queensland Vegetation Management Framework. The Offset ratio applied to Essential Habitat is 1.5 times the area of habitat lost, as defined by the Policy for Vegetation Management Offsets (NRW 2007) on the basis that the offset is provided in the same subregion.

To be classified as being of high quality for the purposes of this Strategy, habitat measures must be within the same meta-population as the development impact will involve improving habitat values through rehabilitation of existing vegetation or rehabilitation of cleared areas.

The net benefit equation is therefore:

Required value of offset package = 1.5 x RHI x Proportion of high quality habitat measures.

In this case: 1.5 x 34.8km = 52.2km for stream length

1.5 x 70.3ha = 105.45ha for associated riparian vegetation

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page C-5

APPENDIX D HABITAT ASSESSMENT AND OFFSET METRICS, GIANT BARRED FROG

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page D-1

D.1 Current Status of Habitat in the Mary Catchment A history of extensive vegetation clearing in the Mary River catchment has contributed to the decline of this species. More than 50% of the total catchment area has been cleared for primarily agricultural land uses (Accad et al. 2008). This figure is somewhat deceptive, because it considers all clearing at the sub-catchment scale when broad scale clearing has been focused primarily on the rich alluvial systems of the Mary River and tributaries.

There were historically four dominant alluvial and riparian ecosystems present in the Upper Mary catchment, RE 12.3.1 (Notophyll vineforest on alluvium), RE 12.3.2 (Flooded Gum wet sclerophyll forest) and RE 12.3.7 (Gallery forest of River Oak and Bottlebrush). These communities represent the core habitat of the Giant Barred Frog. Approximately 80% of the pre-clearing extent of these communities has been cleared and the remaining 20% occurs as highly fragmented and linear patches of habitat.

This Plan seeks to re-instate an extensive network of riparian habitat, improving connectivity between populations of the Giant Barred Frog and produce a nett gain in the extent of riparian habitat across the catchment.

D.2 Critical Habitat Requirements In lowland areas the Giant Barred Frog occurs along slow moving streams with steep banks bordered by rainforest or wet sclerophyll forest (QPWS unpublished data; cited in Hines et al. 2002). Populations of the frog have also been found in disturbed areas with vegetated riparian strips on cattle properties and in regenerated logged areas (Hero 2001 pers. comm.). The Giant Barred Frog is a stream breeding species. Eggs are deposited out of the water by the female under overhanging banks or on steep banks of large pools (Knowles et al. 1998) and daytime shelter positions consist of under leaf litter or vegetation (Lemckert and Brassil 2000). Slow moving streams and isolated large pools with steep/overhanging banks are important for breeding (Patterson et al. 2002).

A short term study of the patterns of daily movement of this species during the breeding season showed that individuals moved up to 100 m in a night, but not more than 20 m from either side of the stream (Lemckert and Brassil 2000). Within this 40 m wide zone the frogs can make a number of movements either parallel to the stream and/or crossing over it, and although some of these movements can be over 60 m, nightly movements are usually less than 10 m, indicating that frogs restrict their activities to a relatively small area (Lemckert and Brassil 2000).

D.3 Extent of Habitat in the Project Area The Giant Barred Frog has been recorded within remnant riparian vine forest and gallery forest (including REs 12.3.1, 12.3.2 and 12.3.7) on Belli Creek, Happy Jack Creek, Skyring Creek, Mary River and Coonoon Gibber Creek. It was only located on the Mary River at two locations, at the confluence with Happy Jack Creek and the confluence with Belli Creek.

Throughout its range, this species is most strongly associated with rainforest and wet sclerophyll forest, corresponding with REs 12.3.1 and 12.3.2 in the Project area. These habitats are considered to represent the habitat of highest suitability for the species.

The Supplementary Report stated that the dam will inundate 215 ha of potential habitat for the Giant Barred Frog within the inundation area (REs 12.3.1, 12.3.2 and 12.3.7). However, only riparian habitat along the tributaries where this species occurs is considered to be known habitat for this species. Known habitat includes remnant riparian vegetation along Skyring Creek, Coonoon Gibber Creek, Happy Jack Creek and Belli Creek. The areas to be impacted by the Project are listed in Table D-1. A total of approximately 50.88 ha of known riparian habitat will be

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page D-2

impacted by the Project at FSL (100% full). Vegetation on the Mary River, Kandanga Creek, and Yabba Creek will also be inundated by the dam. While these waterways are not known to provide resident or breeding habitat for the Giant Barred Frog, the frogs may potentially utilise this habitat for movement. As a result of the inundation of this potential habitat (164.29 ha of remnant riparian vegetation), the loss of this riparian vegetation will also be included in the impacted habitats, for its connectivity function only (see Table D-2 and Table D-3).

Table D-1 Areas (ha) of Known Habitat for the Giant Barred Frog impacted within the inundation area*

Creek RE 12.3.1 RE 12.3.2 RE 12.3.7 Total Habitat Skyring 11.61 8.14 0.09 19.84 Coonoon Gibber 3.49 0 3.35 6.84 Happy Jack 0 13.15 0.45 13.6 Belli 3.74 6.86 0 10.6 Kandanga, Yabba and Mary River 41.03 26.7 96.56 164.29 Total Habitat 59.87 54.85 100.49 215.57 * Based on 3D Environmental’s vegetation data (Chapter 7 of the EIS)

D.4 Habitat Suitability Criteria The following habitat suitability criteria have been developed to enable weighting of the significance of Giant Barred Frog habitat lost and/or modified as a result of the proposal to inform the calculation of residual habitat impact and subsequently offsets required for net conservation benefit.

High quality habitat for the Giant Barred Frog is considered to be any remnant patch of RE 12.3.1, RE 12.3.2 or RE 12.3.7 on a tributary where the Giant Barred Frog is known to occur. This approach is quite conservative in nature, because the Giant Barred Frog is not likely to occupy every patch.

The low suitability category essentially includes all remaining remnant vegetation on the Mary River, Kandanga Creek, and Yabba Creek. As the Giant Barred Frog is not known from Kandanga or Yabba Creek within the project area, this approach is precautionary in nature, and provides for ultra conservatism in regard to the true extent of Giant Barred Frog habitat.

Whilst the Mary River, Kandanga Creek and Yabba Creek are not known to provide resident or breeding habitat for the Giant Barred Frog, the frogs may potentially utilise this habitat for movement. The loss of this riparian vegetation on these systems has been included in the impacted habitats, for its connectivity function only.

The application of a multiplier of 0.4ha to habitat which is predominantly cleared, but provides connectivity value, is supported by the approach put forward by the Koala Offset Policy, which utilises exactly the same approach for fragmented Koala habitat.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page D-3

Table D-2 Habitat Suitability Criteria for Giant Barred Frog

Habitat Suitability Attributes Suitability Weighting Highest Remnant patch of RE 12.3.1, RE 12.3.2 or RE 12.3.7 on a tributary 1.0 where the Giant Barred Frog is known to occur Moderately suitable N/A N/A Lowest Remnant patch of RE 12.3.1, RE 12.3.2, or RE 12.3.7 on a 0.4 waterway identified as a potential movement only habitat (Mary River, Yabba Ck and Kandanga Ck)

The Mary River channel provides a low quality habitat for the Giant Barred Frog, despite records of the species at the confluence of tributaries. Patches of habitat on the Mary River were not included in the calculation of RHI for the Giant Barred Frog because they are located in an area which does not contain likely breeding pools and is highly fragmented in relation to patches of high quality habitat.

D.5 Calculating Residual Habitat Impact There is only 1 species specific offset policy currently operating in Queensland (Offsets for net benefits to Koalas and Koala habitat). The focus of that policy is impacts on the quantity, quality and connectivity of habitat – referred to as Residual Habitat Impact (RHI). The methodology developed for calculated of RHI for the Koala and subsequently the area of offset required for net conservation benefit has been modified to assist in the calculation of offset targets in this Strategy.

To calculate residual habitat impact for this species:

• RHI = Area of loss (in hectares or stream length) x suitability weighting x duration weighting • Suitability weighting = 0.4 (low suitability), 0.7 (medium), 1.0 (high) • Duration weighting = 1.0, regardless of duration of loss

Table D-3 below presents residual habitat impact calculations for the Giant Barred Frog, expressed as hectares of riparian vegetation inundated at Full Supply Level. We have assumed a duration weighting of 1.0 for all habitat loss. This deviates from the guidance provided by current species specific offset policy by increasing the duration weighting from 0.5 to 1.0.

Table D-3 Residual Habitat Impact Calculations for Giant Barred Frog

Habitat Suitability (weighted) Habitat units impacted (ha) Residual Habitat Impact (ha), weighted by suitability Highest suitability 50.88 50.88 Moderate suitability 0 0 Lowest suitability 164.29 65.72 TOTAL 215.17 116.6

D.6 Required Value of the Rehabilitation Package The target value of the rehabilitation for the purpose of this Strategy package is 1.5 times the value of the RHI for that proportion of an offset package that comprises high quality habitat measures.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page D-4

The multiplication factor of 1.5 is derived from the Queensland Government Offset Policy for the Koala (Offsets for Net Benefit to Koalas and Koala Habitat, 2006, Environmental Protection Agency). The same multiplier is applied to the loss of Essential Habitat under the Queensland Vegetation Management Framework. The Offset ratio applied to Essential Habitat is 1.5 times the area of habitat lost, as defined by the Policy for Vegetation Management Offsets (NRW 2007), on the basis that the offset is provided in the same subregion.

To be classified as being of high quality for the purposes of this Strategy, habitat measures must be within the same meta-population as the development impact will involve improving habitat values through rehabilitation of existing vegetation or rehabilitation of cleared areas.

The net benefit equation is therefore: Required value of offset package = 1.5 x RHI. In this case, the target is 1.5 x 116.6 ha = 174.9 ha.

D.7 Configuration of Habitat Restoration Works for the Giant Barred Frog On land under QWI control, it is intended that 60 m (measured from the edge of the stream) on either side of the stream be revegetated.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page D-5

APPENDIX E HABITAT ASSESSMENT AND OFFSET METRICS, QUEENSLAND LUNGFISH

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page E-1

E.1 Critical Habitat Requirements The Queensland Lungfish requires still or slow-flowing, shallow, vegetated pools with clear or turbid water in which to spawn and feed (Allen 1989; Merrick and Schmida 1984). The species is restricted to areas of permanent water (Brooks and Kind 2002).

E.2 Extent of Habitat in the Project Area Adult Lungfish in the Mary River are associated with overhanging riparian (riverside) vegetation, woody debris in the water, and dense macrophyte beds. They shelter in complex, shaded habitat and mostly prefer habitat with overhanging vegetation and macrophytes in relation to their availability, and often use habitat with woody debris, although adults are not as reliant on submerged branches as some other Australian freshwater fish.

The species avoids open water, and very seldom uses rocky habitat and eroded banks, which are uncommon in the Mary River. They occur in water that is 1.86 m ± 0.61m deep on average and in deeper water in winter than in summer (2.07 ± 1m versus 1.81 ± 0.82m). They use shallower water in the spawning season than at other times (1.77 ± 0.95m), and slightly deeper water during the day than at night. Adult Lungfish use water depths of 2 to 3 metres. Two macrophytes, Vallisneria (Vallisneria gigantea) and Hydrilla (Hydrilla vertillata) were used by all Lungfish radio-tracked in the Mary River, but Kind (2002) did not find any adult Lungfish using the macrophytes Baby Tears (Bacopa monnieri), Nitella (Nitella sp.), Watermilfoils (Myriophyllum spp.), or Hornwort (Ceratophyllum demersum).

In relation to their availability, Lungfish preferred some species of macrophytes over others; they preferentially used two species that form very dense submerged banks and occur in a range of water depths; Dense Water Weed (Egeria densa) and Hydrilla. They also prefer multi-species mixtures of floating and submerged macrophytes, and two species with floating leaves; Water Primrose (Ludwigia peploides) and waterlilies (Nymphoides sp.) (Kind 2002).

Root systems of Callistemon trees are known to be used as Lungfish spawning habitat, particularly in the Brisbane River, where this species is a commonly occurring form of riparian vegetation (Kemp 1984). Callistemon were among the riparian vegetation observed in the study area during the EIS study, but along with most other riparian vegetation, formed discontinuous, patchy habitat, which makes it unlikely that Callistemon root systems form primary Lungfish spawning habitat.

E.3 Habitat Suitability Criteria The presence of macrophytes is an important requirement for the Queensland Lungfish, and in terms of ranking habitat suitability, those reaches with abundant macrophytes are considered to be of higher suitability than reaches with few, or no macrophytes.

Hydrobiology (2007) generated mapping of dominant aquatic habitats on the main channel of the Mary River. Mapping unit data was generated from the field data for each pool, run and riffle by assessment of:

• The dominant submerged, floating, fringing and emergent macrophyte species; • Density estimates of the dominant species and overall macrophyte cover; • Summary classification of the dominant aquatic habitat viz open water dominated, submerged macrophyte dominated, floating macrophyte dominated, emergent/fringing macrophyte dominated or dry exposed bed dominated; and • Summary classification of native versus exotic macrophyte dominated based on >50 % of the observed macrophyte cover.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page E-2

In terms of broad-scale habitat associations, Hydrobiology (2007) found that the eastern tributaries (Belli Creek, Skyring Creek and Coles Creek) were characterised by narrow, incised streams dominated by silt-clay sediments, dense riparian cover (and consequently, dense leaf litter and large woody debris), turbid, low oxygen concentrations and, in some instances, elevated conductivity linked to groundwater inputs. Macrophytes were often absent from these sites due to turbid conditions and dense shading by riparian vegetation. These tributaries are not included in calculations of residual habitat impact for the Queensland Lungfish.

Reaches of Yabba and Kandanga Creeks which support fringing riparian vegetation were also considered representative of high quality habitat. The presence of remnant riparian vegetation was considered a surrogate for riparian vegetation condition, which influences habitat quality for Lungfish.

The following habitat suitability criteria have been developed to enable weighting of the significance of habitat lost and/or modified as a result of the proposal to inform the calculation of residual habitat impact and subsequently offsets required for net conservation benefit.

Table E-1 Habitat Suitability Criteria, Queensland Lungfish

Habitat Suitability Stream length within Project area Suitability Weighting Highest For the Mary River: Reaches of the Mary River mapped by 1.0 Hydrobiology (2007) as submerged or floating macrophyte dominated. For tributaries: reaches of Yabba and Kandanga Creeks fringed by remnant vegetation. Moderately suitable For the Mary River: Reaches of the Mary River mapped by 0.7 Hydrobiology (2007) as open water dominated. For tributaries: reachesof Yabba and Kandanga Creeks fringed by vegetation. Lowest For the Mary River: Reaches of the Mary River mapped by 0.4 Hydrobiology (2007) asall other non-classified lengths of the Mary River.. For tributaries: reachesof Yabba and Kandanga Creeks with no fringing vegetation.

The areas currently considered to be of lowest suitability for Lungfish essentially only provide habitat suitable for foraging and dispersal. They are characterised by a complete lack of riparian vegetation and macrophytes, and are of limited value to the Lungfish. The impoundment is likely to provide habitat of equivalent value for foraging and movement, and as such, the requirement to offset the loss of habitat which falls within the category of “lowest” is considered unnecessary.

E.4 Extent of Habitat in the Project Area Table E-2 below lists the extent of high, medium and low suitability habitat within the Project area for the Queensland Lungfish based on the classification of each major tributary and the Mary River in accordance with the criteria described above.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page E-3

Table E-2 Extent of High, medium and low quality habitat in the Project area for Queensland Lungfish

Habitat Suitability Stream length within Project Associated riparian vegetation area

Highest 21.29 46.43 Moderately suitable 3.22 10.46 Lowest 34.09 43.75 TOTAL 58.6km 100.64ha

E.5 Calculating Residual Habitat Impact There is only 1 species specific offset policy currently operating in Queensland (Offsets for net benefits to Koalas and Koala habitat). The focus of that policy is impacts on the quantity, quality and connectivity of habitat – referred to as Residual Habitat Impact (RHI).The methodology developed for calculated of RHI for the Koala and subsequently the area of offset required for net conservation benefit has been modified to assist in the calculation of offset targets in this Strategy.

As areas mapped as having ‘lowest suitability’ for Lungfish actually have comparable values to the proposed impoundment, they are assigned a suitability weighting of zero for the purpose of this exercise.

To calculate residual habitat impact:

• RHI = Area of loss (in hectares or stream length) x suitability weighting x duration weighting; • Suitability weighting = 0.4 (low suitability), 0.7 (medium), 1.0 (high); and • Duration weighting = 0.5 (temporary, for riparian vegetation to be replaced through revegetation), 1.0 (permanent, for loss of stream length).

The longer the duration of loss the higher the RHI. Any loss of vegetation that is to be re-established within three years of clearing to vegetation and landform that will provide equivalent habitat when regrown is only considered a temporary loss. It is included in the calculation of RHI with a duration weighting of 0.5, whereas a duration weighting of 1.0 is applied to all permanent loss.

Whilst the Koala Offset Policy contains provisions relating to timelag, no multiplier has been included in the formulae developed for this HRP. Whereas the Koala Offset Policy assigns a timelag multiplier of x2 for rehabilitated areas, the metrics applied in this HRP assign a timelag weighting of 1. As there will be no time-lag between the inundation of the impoundment, and the availability (and assumed uptake) of habitat for the aquatic species (i.e., the tributaries and Mary River Channel already provide habitat, and the impoundment will also provide habitat), this is considered a reasonable and practical approach. In contrast, vegetation which provides suitable habitat for the koala needs to be well established before it is able to provide the necessary habitat attributes to support koala populations (e.g. trees of sufficient size to support its body weight and foliage consumption).

E.6 Residual Habitat Impact Table E-3 below presents residual habitat impact calculations for the Queensland Lungfish, expressed as kilometres of stream impacted and hectares of riparian vegetation inundated at Full Supply Level.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page E-4

The formula used to calculate RHI for the Lungfish differs for stream length and hectares. For stream length, the loss has been assumed to be permanent, and the RHI calculation includes a duration weighting of 1. For associated riparian vegetation, the duration weighting used is 0.5, because the loss will be temporary in nature.

Table E-3 Residual Habitat Impact Calculations for Queensland Lungfish

Habitat Habitat units Residual Habitat Associated Residual Habitat Suitability impacted (km Impact (km) riparian vegetation Impact (ha) (weighted) impacted (ha) High 21.29 21.29 46.43 23.21 Medium 3.22 2.25 10.46 3.66 Low 34.09 43.75 8.75 TOTAL 58.6 km 23.54 100.64 ha 35.62 *the 34.09km of lowest suitability habitat will be modified, but not lost to this species. As the values currently provided by that habitat for Lungfish are minimal, and will be met in the impoundment, this category is not considered further in estimates of loss.

E.7 Required Value of the Rehabilitation Package The target value of the rehabilitation for the purpose of this Strategy package is 1.5 times the value of the RHI for that proportion of an offset package that comprises high quality habitat measures.

The multiplication factor of 1.5 is derived from the Queensland Government Offset Policy for the Koala (Offsets for Net Benefit to Koalas and Koala Habitat, 2006, Environmental Protection Agency). The same multiplier is applied to the loss of Essential Habitat under the Queensland Vegetation Management Framework. The Offset ratio applied to Essential Habitat is 1.5 times the area of habitat lost, as defined by the Policy for Vegetation Management Offsets (NRW 2007), on the basis that the offset is provided in the same subregion.

To be classified as being of high quality for the purposes of this Strategy, habitat measures must be within the same meta-population as the development impact will involve improving habitat values through rehabilitation of existing vegetation or rehabilitation of cleared areas.

The net benefit equation is therefore:

Required value of offset package = 1.5 x Residual habitat impact x Proportion of high quality habitat measures.

The net benefit equation is therefore:

Required value of offset package = 1.5 x RHI.

In this case, the target is 1.5 x 23.54km = 35.31km for stream length, and

1.5 x 35.62 = 53.43ha for associated riparian vegetation.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page E-5

APPENDIX F LITERATURE REVIEW, BUFFER WIDTHS

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page F-1

F.1 Introduction A literature review was completed to determine appropriate buffer widths to achieve multiple objectives, particularly water quality improvement and enhancement of biodiversity networks. The following sections provide an overview of the following:

• Appropriate buffer widths for sediment removal and erosion control; • Appropriate buffer widths for stripping of nutrients and organic pollutants; • Buffer widths for terrestrial biodiversity conservation; • Buffer widths for aquatic biodiversity conservation; • The influence of buffer vegetation type; • Functionally important plant species in the Mary catchment; • Buffer widths recommended by regulatory agencies in Queensland; and • Proposed buffer and planting widths for rehabilitation works.

F.2 Sediment removal and erosion control Riparian buffers are effective at reducing sediment in waterways, and are more efficient at removing sediment than nutrients (Barling and Moore 1994). A review of the scientific literature shows that a 30m buffer provides a sufficient level of sediment protection under most scenarios with wider buffers required on steep slopes. An extension of 0.6m per 1% of slope is recommended by (Wegner, 1999). Revegetation of riparian buffers can potentially result in large economic savings for municipal water treatment as a direct consequence of reduced sediment load and pollutants bound to sediment entering the water treatment plant. An annual saving of up to $60 million in water treatment costs was estimated in a buffer restoration model for the Brisbane River catchment (Rajbhandari, 2003).

A study in far North Queensland showed that grass buffer strips were able to trap more than 80% of the incoming bedload (McKergow et al. 2004). Another study also showed that a forest buffer reduced suspended solids by 80% (Lynch et al. 1985).

Riparian buffers reduce sediment inputs in six ways (adapted from Wenger, 1999):

• By creating setbacks for sediment producing land use; • By capturing sediments transported by surface runoff; • By slowing the velocity of water and allowing sediments to settle onto land and capturing sediments on vegetation during floods; • By increasing bank stability and reducing stream bank erosion • By reducing water velocities during floods and hence reducing flood scouring; and • By providing a source of large woody debris that traps sediment in-stream.

F.3 Nutrient Pollutants Buffers are fairly effective at trapping nitrogen with 30m buffer being sufficient to reduce nitrogen concentrations by 70-90% (Muscutt et al, 1993). Nitrogen is removed by riparian buffers both through uptake by plants and through denitrificaton (a process which is especially active in wetlands with saturated soils). A review of four papers testing the effectiveness of narrow grassed buffers found an average total N Removal of 34.5% for a 4.6m buffer which increased to 61.5% when a 9.1m wide buffer was in place.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page F-2

A major factor contributing to the decline of water quality is the amount of phosphorus getting into streams from gully erosion and stream bank erosion. Phosphorous is less effectively removed by riparian buffers than nitrogen. Buffers can provide short term trapping of insoluble phosphorous bound to sediments. A review of four papers on total Phosphorus removal by grassed buffers found a mean effectiveness of 47.9% for a 4.6m buffer and 58.9% for a 9.1m buffer. Longer term studies reveal that over time phosphorus can accumulate in the soil and saturate buffer strips. Phosphorus saturation limits of buffer strips vary depending on the cation exchange capacity of the soils, vegetation type and other factors. Buffers even when saturated with phosphorous can still provide a slow release of phosphorous so protecting the waterway from sudden spikes of phosphorous pollution. Buffers have been shown in most studies to be less effective in reducing soluble phosphorus concentrations from streams. Removal of phosphorous sources such as grazing animals and septic tanks from the catchment (where possible) is an effective management measure to reduce phosphate levels entering the buffer and reduce the total phosphorous loads filtering through the buffer into the waterways.

Table F-1 highlights the water quality improvements in relation to varying buffer vegetations and widths from a number of studies. All investigations show positive effects of a vegetated buffer zone on different aspects of water quality. Doyle et al. (1977) evaluated the effectiveness of forest and grass buffer strips in improving water quality of manure-polluted runoff. This study showed that both buffer strips produced significant reductions in nutrient levels, particularly in the first few metres. Soluble nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) decreased by 94.7%, 99.7% and 95.0% respectively after 3.8m in the forest buffer strip. In the grass buffer strip, soluble P was reduced by 62% after 4.0m. Another study also showed substantial reduction in total nitrogen, total phosphorus and suspended sediment loads (25-65% reductions) within the first 15 m of a grass buffer (McKergrow et al. 2004).

F.4 Organic Pollutants Faecal coliforms and organic pollution are removed at moderate rates by riparian buffers with a 60m wide buffer showing 87% reduction in faecal coliforms and 62% reduction in biological oxygen demand (BOD) (Young et al 1977 cited in: Karr and Schlosser 1977). Impervious surfaces such at bitumen roads convey bacterial contamination into waterways and as such must not be counted towards buffer areas. (Mallin et al. 2000).

Pesticides can also be trapped by vegetated riparian buffers through slowing of transfer from land to water and provision of biological activity sites where pesticides can be broken down within soils. Increased buffer width provides increased retention time). A 60m forested buffer has been shown to effectively remove 90% of water contamination for the herbicides Atrazine and Alachlor, with the chemicals taking three years to infiltrate into groundwater (Lowrance et al. 1997). Another study found that 12m and 24m grassed buffer removed only 10% and 40% of Atrazine Cyanazine and Metachlor pesticides (Hatfield et al, 1995).

Table F-1 Improvements in water quality for various buffer types and widths

Paper Buffer Type Width Improvement of water quality Studied (m) Doyle et al. 1977 forest buffer 3.8 soluble N, P and K decreased by 94.7%, 99.7% and 95.0% respectively Doyle et al. 1977 grass buffer 4 soluble P reduced by 62% Alberts et al. 1981 cornstalk residue 2.7 nutrient discharges reduced by 70% buffer Lynch et al. 1985 forest buffer 30 removed 80% suspended solids

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page F-3

Paper Buffer Type Width Improvement of water quality Studied (m) Hanson et al. 1994 Forested Acer 30 N concentrations reduced by -94% Wetland Swift & Norton 1993 forest buffer 50 total P concentrations reduced from 10 mg P 1-1 to < 1 mg P 1-1 McKergow et al. grass buffer 15 trapped 46% suspended solids, 26% total N, 40% 2004 total P McKergow et al. grass buffer 50 trapped 45% total N and 64% total P 2004 Dillaha et al. grass buffer 4.6 total reduced N by 34.5%, P by 47.9% 1998&9; Magette et al. 1987&1989 Dillaha et al. 1998- grass buffer 9.1 total N reduced by 61.5%, P by 58.9% 9; Magette et al. 1987&1989 Young et al 1977 grass buffer 60 87% reduction in faecal coliforms, 62% reduction in reviewed in: Karr biological oxygen and Schlosser 1977 P=phosphorus, N=nitrogen, K=potassium

F.5 Terrestrial Biodiversity Conservation of a full range of forest dwelling terrestrial plants and animals in riparian buffers more likely to be achieved in relatively wide buffer zones (Laurence & Yensen, 1991). Narrower buffer strips provide habitat for edge and disturbance adapted species only and are highly susceptible to weed invasion which can damage the integrity of the riparian vegetation (Lonsdale, 1999). Exotic vine weeds are particularly problematic in subtropical and tropical areas of Australia as they can smother and kill mature and regenerating riparian trees and further weed invasion due to increased light and nutrients leading to bank destabilization, erosion available after canopy collapse (BSRLG, 2008; Harden et al 2004). The majority of edge effects such as increased light and air movement generally extend up to or greater than 60m from a forest edge so 30m wide buffers are not sufficient to provide habitat for specialist forest interior biota (Murcia, 1995, see Figure F-1 below). Wider buffers greater than 60m can reduce the weed invasion of buffers and have potential to reduce management and weed maintenance costs (Catteral, 1990).

Buffer effectiveness is influenced by many factors including the duration and severity of rainfall events. Wider buffers are needed to protect water quality during severe storms when a large amount of sediment and pollutants can enter the waterways. A trend with increasing severe rainfall events in North Eastern Australia is evident in rainfall data from the past century (Heylock & Nicholls, 2000; Hennessy et al, 1999). Climate change has been projected to accelerate this trend and further increase the intensity of rainfall events (Groisman et al, 1999). Buffer width should be increased to account for future heavier rainfall events resulting from climate change.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page F-4

Plant Species Richness Minimum (m) Air Temperature Median (m) Understorey Cover Maximum (m) Light (PAR) Chemical Substances Air Pressure Mortality Bird Density Canopy Cover Nest Predation 0 200 400 600 800

Figure F-1 Edge Effects in Forests: a summary of 37 Studies on Edge Effects in Forests Worldwide from data collated by Murcia, 1995.

The majority of Edge effects dissipate within 60 m of the forest edge while canopy cover and damage effects extend 160 m, only nest predation and seed dispersal effects extended 5-600 m. However, Seed Dispersal and plant invasion was found to extent 10 and 80 m in two studies and 500m in a single study. Nest predation was found to not be significant in five studies and found to extent 600m in a single study.

F.6 Aquatic Biodiversity Woody vegetation buffers in riparian areas provide inputs of large woody debris and smaller organic matter. These inputs provide a basis for aquatic food webs as well as food in the form of fallen insects and shelter for fish species (Robertson & Cook, 1999). Shading of streams by riparian vegetation keeps water temperature down increasing dissolved oxygen concentrations and providing conditions for a greater diversity of aquatic invertebrates and vertebrates (Campbell et al, 1992). The shading effect is likely to depend more on the structure of vegetation rather than the width of the buffer. Murphy and Kosky (1989) found that a 30m buffer of woody vegetation provided 99% of the large woody debris in a stream. Additional large woody debris would only be provided from areas greater than 30m from the stream during flood events and over long timescales when larger buffers are needed to maintain the buffer during stream migration.

An Australian study of the impacts of logging in Tasmania found that logged areas showed increased sedimentation decreased macro invertebrate and fish abundance in comparison to unlogged sites, these impacts of logging were not significant when a 30 m riparian buffer was maintained, narrower buffers were less effective (Davies and Nelson, 1994).

F.7 Buffer Vegetation Type While buffers of native woody vegetation provide the greatest benefits especially for biodiversity, grassed buffers with grazing and other land uses excluded also provide a positive water quality benefit that is in some parameters is comparable to the benefit from woody vegetation. Woody vegetation has important advantages over grasses in the parameters of bank stability (Abernathy & Rutherfurd, 2000). Woody vegetation also exhibits increased ability to remove pollutants from shallow groundwater due to the deeper root zone of trees and for biodiversity benefits due to its more complex structure than grassed areas and provision of large woody debris.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page F-5

Given these differences a viable management Strategy would be to fence off all areas of buffer providing the water quality benefits of un-grazed grass buffers then progressively regenerate native riparian forest of the appropriate regional ecosystem from the stream outwards to the buffer margin. From a water quality perspective, highly degraded sites should be targeted for regeneration first as these sites show the greatest improvement in water quality after restoration (Teel et al, 2006). The inverse is true of planting for biodiversity gain.

Riparian vegetation is generally defined as having three zones the aquatic zone the riparian zone and the adjacent hill slope or floodplain. Each zone has different benefits to water quality and biodiversity.

Table F-2 Functions of Structural Features in Riparian Vegetation Zones (Adapted from Christensen, 2000)

Zone Location Structural Function Features Aquatic zone Below mean Large Woody Interrupts water flow retains sediment assists in flow level Debris formation of pools and riffles and provides fish habitat. Aquatic Plants Retain Sediment, uptake of nutrients, habitat for (Macrophytes) aquatic species Riparian zone Between 100 Roots of Terrestrial Stabilize bank and absorb nutrients year flood level Vegetation and mean flow Marginal Grasses Reduce erosion and retain sediment, habitat for and Sedges terrestrial invertebrates Canopy and woody Shading of stream and source of leaf litter, large parts of riparian woody debris, and terrestrial wildlife habitat trees and shrubs Adjacent hill Above 100 year Forest and Retains sediments and pollutants, source of leaf slope or flood level understorey litter, terrestrial wildlife corridor. floodplain

F.8 Functionally Important Plant Species in the Mary Catchment Waterhousia floribunda is a large rainforest tree restricted to riparian zones it provides high bank stability. Casuariana cunninghamiana is also a large tree restricted to riparian zones providing high levels of erosion protection. Eucalyptus tereticornis is also important for bank stability in lower river reaches. Callistemon (Melaleuca) viminalis is a shrub to small tree with dense foliage that withstands high flood velocities and increases stream channel stability. Lomandra histrix and Carex spp. are sedge or rush like plants that have immensely strong fibrous root systems their benefits for stream stability and sediment trapping are obvious and for good reason they are increasingly utilized in riparian rehabilitation in Eastern Australia. All of these species propagated from local seeds should form components of the revegetation for the Mary River in locations where the Regional Ecosystem is likely to contain each species.

Revegetation of areas of degraded riparian vegetation along the Mary River with species which characterised the pre-clearing pattern of vegetation should provide a range of increased water quality and habitat benefits.

Increasing the buffer width to 60m while likely to provide only moderate additional water quality benefits during mean flow should significantly increase water quality during flood events. A 60m

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page F-6

buffer would also provide increased removal of sediment and pollutants under increased heavy rainfall events predicted to occur with climate change. In terms of fauna habitat a 60m buffer is considered the minimum width to provide habitat for the adults of the threatened Giant Barred Frog Mixophyes iteratus (Streatfield, 1999).

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page F-7

APPENDIX G SITE RESTORATION PLANNING PROCESS

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page G-1

G.1 Content of Restoration Management Plans It is intended that restoration management plans (RMP’s) be prepared for each reach to be rehabilitated. Each RMP will contain a high level of site detail including a detailed site plan that will be prepared to determine the distribution, extent and condition of existing vegetation relative to existing and ongoing uses of the property. Attributes such was waterway crossings, fence locations, camp sites, pipeline and powerline locations will be recorded. This task can be completed via desktop analysis of aerial photography followed by a site visit to verify outputs.

Queensland Herbarium pre-clearing regional ecosystem mapping will be reviewed along with geological survey information to determine likely historical patterns of vegetation. Mapping will be prepared which shows the extent of each target ecosystem type. The objective will be to restore these historical vegetation types in suitable areas.

To enable time and cost efficient restoration of the site, a clear set of restoration priorities will be required. The RMP will outline priority actions and provide a suggested timeline for works to be carried out. Issues to be considered will include fencing requirements, consolidation of creek crossings, bank stabilisation and weed control. At this stage it will also be appropriate to determine the optimum configuration of revegetation works (buffer widths, location of habitat nodes, etc).

Weed control will be a high priority activity prior to any revegetation works. An inventory of environmental weeds and declared pest plants will be prepared for the site. Detailed profiles will be provided for each environmental weed or pest plant species present, as well as guidelines for best practice control methods for these specific species. A weed management plan will be prepared which documents timing, methods, treatment intervals and other issues relevant to successful eradication and control of problem species.

In order to achieve rapid domination of the site and impressive growth rates, a site specific planting scheme will be required which responds to successional processes in the target vegetation types. Detailed planting plans (diagrams) will be prepared which detail plant species composition, plant spacing data and staging requirements.

A schedule of plant species and numbers required to meet the requirements of the planting.

Species selection and numbers will be based on remnant trees present on the site as well as the species known to be present in the same Regional Ecosystem within the Mary River Catchment.

Maintenance and monitoring schedules will be provided for initial and follow up onsite actions. The schedules will detail the timing, duration and purpose of follow-up maintenance as well as site monitoring requirements and action triggers.

Detailed maps will be provided showing the location of existing site infrastructure and vegetation, restoration and revegetation areas overlaid on aerial photography and cadastral boundaries.

Detailed monitoring design for the tracking of progress toward the target site condition, determined from benchmark data. This will include proposed layout of monitoring transects, description of monitoring and analysis methodology.

G.1.1 IDENTIFICATION AND PROTECTION OF EXISTING VEGETATION Existing remnant and advanced regrowth vegetation will be identified and mapped using data derived from EPA regional ecosystems and mapping undertaken for the EIS by 3D environmental. Areas mapped as remnant or advanced riparian regrowth fence will be fenced as soon as practicable to exclude stock. Interim weed control measures will be implemented in conjunction

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page G-2

with fencing to combat increased weed growth as a result of grazing exclusion and to prevent further degradation from smothering of trees by vine weeds.

G.1.2 ESTABLISHMENT OF OFF-STREAM WATERING POINTS Stock access to streams results in direct tramping of native seedlings, compaction of soil, spread of weed propagules and direct contamination of water by cattle urine and faeces leading to decreased bank stability. Off-stream watering points provide water to stock while excluding stock from the riparian zone. Solar pumps linked to water troughs or small rainwater tanks with additional rainwater collection surfaces are two possible approaches to provide cost effective off stream watering.

G.1.3 WEED MANAGEMENT Baseline mapping of weeds will be undertaken using handheld GPS with data recorded in the field including species present and cover abundance. Using standard metrics for cover abundance such as Braun Blanquet provides useful abundance data and requires only 20-30% of the time taken to undertake stem counts (Wikum D. A. and Shanholtzer, 1978).

Weed species will be prioritised according to ecological impacts and infestation levels. For example vine weeds such as Cats Claw Creeper (Macfadyena unguis-cati) capable of smothering mature riparian trees and creating opportunity for further weed invasion will be given top priority (Harden et al 2004). Grass weeds such as Green Panic (Megathyrsus maximus) will be given a moderate to high priority due to their ability to smother plantings, though these grass weeds are relatively easy to control with regular management. Shrubby weeds such as Privets (Ligustrum spp.) will also be given medium priority for control due to their ability to form dense thickets and recruit numerous seedlings (BSRLG, 2008). Tree weeds such as Camphor Laurel (Cinnamomum camphora) will be given a lower priority due to their potential beneficial shelter and suppression of other weeds, these tree weeds will be controlled after plantings have become established. Weed species present in isolated occurrences will also be targeted before they can spread to other areas.

Prioritisation of areas for restoration and weed control will be determined on the basis of weed density. Areas with the lowest weed densities will be priority for restoration and areas with the highest weed densities will be priorities for weed control. Control will proceed from the upper catchment to lower reaches to reduce propagule dispersal from upstream sources that colonise downstream sites.

Pre site preparation plans will be provided detailing the procedures for control of weeds and pasture grasses before any planting can be carried out. The Strategy will also give detailed schedules for maintenance around plantings to remove weed competition and allow maximum plant growth.

G.1.4 BANK STABILISATION Bank stability is largely determined by the nature of riparian vegetation, grazing and stock trampling pressure and the interactions with stream hydrological processes. Intact native riparian vegetation with a mix of fibrous rooted sedges, dense flood resistant shrubs and deep rooted large trees provides high levels of bank stability (Abernethy & Rutherfurd, 2000).

Excluding grazing through fencing and provision of off-stream watering points is likely to provide significant benefits in bank stability. Replanting and assisted natural regeneration is likely to increase bank stability as plantings grow and root mats strengthen. Flooding is a risk as floods can damage young plantings necessitating costly replanting.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page G-3

Species of native plant specifically adapted to withstand high flood velocities on the toe of the bank and in the stream channel have especially stabilising root systems strong enough to prevent the plants from being washed away and so are also the best species to be used in bank stabilisation plantings. Lomandra and Carex species are examples of toe and in-stream channel zone species that are monocotyledonous and have especially tough fibrous root systems, the foliage of these plants also serves to decrease flood water velocities through interruption of hydrological flow.

Shrub and tree species characteristic of fringing open forest and gallery rainforest regional ecosystems are also particularly beneficial for bank stabilisation. Examples from the Mary River catchment include, Watergum (Waterhousia floribunda), Weeping Bottlebrush Melaleuca (Callistemon) viminalis and Black Teatree (M. bracteata) along with River Oak (Casuarina cunninghamiana) and Forest Red Gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis).

G.1.5 ASSISTED NATURAL REGENERATION Assisted Natural Regeneration (ANR) is the practice of restoring plant communities by utilising, reinstating and reinforcing the ecosystem’s ongoing natural regeneration processes. By stimulating the inherent resilience of individual species that have evolved over millennia, ANR aims to maximise biodiversity and establish a management regime to enable its sustainability into the future. ANR will only be appropriate on sites with a high level of resilience, see section 3.3.9 of this report.

G.1.6 REVEGETATION Quantitative benchmarks for ecosystem structure and floristics and will be derived from a combination of EPA pre-clearing RE mapping, species present in nearby remnants and data from the EIS vegetation survey sites (3D Environmental, 2007).

Species selection and proportions will be determined for each regional ecosystem and modified to reflect data from reference sites and knowledge of successional processes within the ecosystem type. For example inclusion of pioneer (early sucessional nomad) species that are fast growing and produce seed within short timeframes to build soil seed banks and increase site resilience to disturbance through seedling regeneration. Some pioneer species such as Acacia and Casuarina species also fix atmospheric nitrogen at high rates by means of symbiotic root bacteria (Rhizobium and Franklia) so increasing nutrient pools within the system and reducing the need for nitrogenous fertilizer application.

Planting design will be zoned according to species habitat preference derived from available literature and transect data for the same regional ecosystem. Habitat zones will mostly vary with distance from the stream channel; stream bed, bank toe, lower bank, mid bank, upper bank, near floodplain, floodplain edge, foot slope and hill slope. Planting spacing will be optimised according to natural density of the regional ecosystem allowing for mortality and self thinning and taking into account the benefits of competitive growth acceleration and weed control in reducing maintenance requirements of plantings (Kooyman, 1996).

All restoration planting stock will be derived from locally sourced seed provenance (within Catchment) to ensure genetic integrity and genotypes adapted to local climatic and soil conditions. In cases where species cannot be sourced locally and are known to have been present within the catchment from reliable historical records such as herbarium specimens, planting stock will be sourced from the nearest catchment where the species still occurs.

Tube stock is relatively low cost and suitable for many fast growing mostly sclerophyllous native species such as Eucalyptus, Casuarina and Acacia spp. Larger super tube grown plants in the order of 50cm tall are more suitable for rainforest species that typify regional ecosystems such as Gallery Notophyll Vine Forest 12.3.1. In comparison direct seeding methods requires large

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page G-4

amounts of seeds and can have low success rates for tree and shrub species. However this method may be highly successful for native grass species such as Kangaroo Grass (Themeda triandra). Seed Collection should be undertaken before and during the clearing of vegetation within the inundation area, fallen trees are an ideal opportunity to collect usually inaccessible seeds in canopies of tall trees, an additional benefit is that local providence and genotypes can be guaranteed. A diversified range of approaches will be required for different regional ecosystems and site conditions.

REGIONAL ECOSYSTEM 12.3.1 Benchmark Data Benchmark data have been collected for RE 12.3.1 in accordance with the methodology presented in Section 6.1.3 of this report. These data have been used to develop a planting prescription for a pilot project currently underway on Coonoon Gibber Creek.

Planting Model Regional Ecosystem 12.3.1 is comprised of a mix of subtropical rainforest associations. A number of models have been devised to describe and predict subtropical rainforest development on cleared land. Invariably they describe a process where ‘earlier’ successional phase species are replaced over time by ‘later’ successional phase species (Hopkins et al. 1977; Winter et al. 1991; Floyd 1999). All are more or less based on the following categorization of species into successional groups (Hopkins et al. 1977):

Earlier successional phase:

• A1 Herbs and soft-wooded shrubs; • A2 Pioneers; and • B Early secondary species.

Later successional phase:

• C Late secondary species; and • D Mature phase (‘primary’) species (after Woodford 2000).

In the last decade, guidelines for rainforest revegetation projects have been published by a number of restoration practitioners including Goosem and Tucker (1995) for north Queensland, and Kooyman (1996) and Big Scrub Rainforest Landcare Group (2005) for south-east Queensland and northern New South Wales. Key factors specified by these models include planting densities and the types of species to be used, including the proportion of individual plants from species that typically occur in different stages of forest succession. Variations in the proportion of individuals from early successional species have sometimes been recommended, based on a site’s distance from remnant forest.

Planting models containing mainly early sucessional and pioneer species have been trialled and it has been found that these are only effective under ideal conditions such as high rainfall, high fertility soil and within 100m of a large rainforest remnant (Woodford 2000). Plantings composed mainly of early successional species located on sites with sub optimal conditions (lower rainfall and or fertility and further from large rainforest remnants) often fail to be colonised by many mature phase species and are subject to weed invasion by species such as Lantana and Privet. The result is a site that has been converted into an early regrowth rainforest and required ongoing management to suppress exotic species until slowly colonised by mature phase species over long timescales.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page G-5

Plantings containing mainly mid to late sucessional species have been shown to be more effective on sites where rainfall or fertility is lower and the nearest large rainforest remnant is a significant distance away. With sufficient planting techniques, species selection, fertilizer application and weed maintenance, plantings of mid and mature phase species can rapidly develop towards mature forest structure and floristic assemblage, although full biomass accumulation and ecosystem function may take centuries to reach benchmark levels.

The most frequently used model focuses on the use of mid to late secondary and slower growing mature phase species at appropriate densities with pioneer and quick growing early secondary tree species mixed throughout the planting at lower densities to help reduce the time taken to reach a closed-canopy forest. The inclusion of pioneer and early sucessional species has a number of benefits including: rapid canopy closure and leaf litter production; short time to fruit and seed production that attracts frugivorous birds and bats which bring seed from rainforest areas nearby. These early sucessional species also build resilience into the planted community as a seed bank is established in <5 years and seeds will regenerate on the edges of the planting and under disturbance such as storm or frost damage to planted trees.

All species used are selected on the basis of a ‘target’ community, modelled on the presumed natural vegetation community of the planting site. Under this model, a floristically (species) diverse closed canopy forest has usually been achieved within 1.5-3 years.

One of the primary goals of rainforest restoration is to establish a closed canopy. At that stage (canopy closure), maintenance is greatly reduced or no longer needed (depending on the weeds present at adjacent sites and the soil seed bank at the site). This planting model was used irrespective of a site’s proximity to remnant vegetation to quickly attain canopy closure and shade out invasive pasture grasses and weed species that rapidly colonize a site given the moist, humid conditions experienced in the subtropics during the summer wet season.

Kooyman (1996) found that in plantings of rainforest in Northern NSW some fast growing species were key to rapid establishment and planting spacing was critical to success or failure and the amount of maintenance required. He terms the fastest growing species “accelerators” these include Elaeocarpus grandis, Grevillea robusta and Flindersia schottiana. It was found that if these species were interspersed at regular intervals throughout the planting the growth of other species in the planting was significantly increased, as the normally slower growing species tried to compete with the fastest growing species. This observation was explained by an adaptive syndrome in mature rainforest phase species to colonise small canopy gaps created by falling trees. The use of accelerator species in the planting creates conditions similar to a natural canopy gap as the faster growing species grow above the slower growing species on all sides.

Kooyman (1996) also found that plantings with mean spacings greater than 1.5m had increased maintenance needs and failure rates due to the longer time needed to achieve closed canopy development and difficulty in carrying out the increased maintenance needed. Therefore a mean plant spacing of 1-1.5m is strongly recommended for rainforest plantings.

It is recognised that mature phase, wind dispersed and large seeded species may not colonise sites that are isolated from large remnants naturally and so these species should be included in plantings.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page G-6

Variation within the Regional Ecosystem Within the Mary River catchment there is significant floristic and structural variation within RE 12.3.1.

Lower Terraces on the Mary River and tributaries support forest of Massive Stature of the White Booyong Alliance of Floyd (1990). Canopy heights are 35-45m with emergents to >60m dominant trees in the main canopy include Argyrodendron trifoliatum, Castanospermum australe, Syzygium francisii, Beilschmiedia obtusifolia and other laurels including Endiandra discolor, Cryptocarya macdonaldii and Cryptocarya obovata or C. hypospodia (3D Environmental 2007).

Syzygium (Waterhousea) floribundum is present in remnant stands only as a narrow (~10m) fringing sub canopy strip along the stream channel. In most areas where the lower terrace has been cleared of rainforest the S. floribundum appears to be the dominant species however this is possibly an artefact of clearing (3D Environmental).

Coles Creek an ephemeral creek is a microclimate that experiences seasonal drought and supports a dryer vine forest community with an increased proportion of microphyll sized (2.5-7.5cm long) canopy leaves and prominent facultative deciduous species such as Melia azedarach, Flindersia australis, Grevillea robusta and Ehretia acuminata.

The floristic variations observed in the Mary River Catchment is very similar to those outlined in the classification of Floyd (1990) for NSW rainforests. This system is the most detailed rainforest classification system in use in Australia as it is based on the dominant canopy species (floristics) not just structural attributes as Webb’s system.

Floyd (1990) defined most lowland subtropical rainforests as belonging to the Argyrodendron trifoliolatum alliance, he explains how on lowland alluvial areas the Toona ciliata - Flindersia spp. sub alliance occurs. This sub alliance is replaced in most upstream alluvial areas by the Elaeocarpus grandis sub alliance and in dryer upstream sites by the Castanospermum australe – Dysoxylum mollissimum sub alliance. Sites located on alluvial floodplains support the Cryptocarya obovata sub alliance. All of these sub alliances contain Argyrodendron trifoliolatum as a sub dominant species indicating their grouping in the alliance with the same name.

Analogues of Floyd’s NSW Dry Rainforest alliances are also represented in the Mary Valley RE 12.3.1. The Castanospermum australe, Syzygium (Waterhousia) floribundum alliance has two sub alliances; Castanospermum australe – Grevillea robusta occurs on northern NSW dry river banks while the Syzygium (Waterhousia) floribundum - Tristaniopsis laurina sub alliance on similar more southern sites.

All dominant species in Floyd’s sub alliances and alliances with the exception of Dysoxylum mollissimum have been recorded in the benchmark sites for RE 12.3.1 surveyed by 3D Environmental and SKM. Tristaniopsis laurina was also not recorded in RE 12.3.1 however T. laurina was recorded by 3D Environmental in RE 12.3.7 indicating that it may once have been also present in RE 12.3.1. Cryptocarya hypospodia is a species that occurs north from Imbil and so is not present in NSW or included in Floyd’s classification however it is a close relative of Cryptocarya obovata that replaces this species north of Marlborough and the Mary Valley is the only place where the two species co exist (Harden et. al, 2006). These small floristic differences indicate that while a small minority of species are not present in NSW Floyd’s classification is still informative of floristic variation in riparian and floodplain rainforests in SE QLD.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page G-7

Species Mix The Regional Ecosystem Description Database (REDD) maintained by the EPA provides some floristic information for RE 12.3.1:

“Gallery rainforest (notophyll vine forest) on alluvial plains. Complex to simple notophyll vine forest. Waterhousea floribunda is predominant fringing stream channels. Other species can include Cryptocarya hypospodia, C. obovata, C. triplinervis, Argyrodendron trifoliolatum, Ficus coronata, F. fraseri, F. macrophylla forma macrophylla, Aphananthe philippinensis, Elaeocarpus grandis, Grevillea robusta, Castanospermum australe and Syzygium francisii. Ficus racemosa and Nauclea orientalis in north of bioregion. Eucalyptus spp. emergents (e.g. E. grandis) and Araucaria cunninghamii; less commonly Agathis robusta may also be present. Occurs on Quaternary alluvial plains and channels.”

The term “complex notophyll vineforest” requires some clarification:

• “Complex” is a rainforest classification term coined by Dr. Len Webb and means that the rainforest has a predominance of special life forms such as plank buttresses, palms, strangler figs, large woody vines, large vascular epiphytes. Simple means that a rainforest has few of these features. Climatic factors determine how complex or simple a forest is. Warm climate, fertile soils and high rainfall promote the formation of complex features, while conversely Cool climate, infertile soils and lower rainfall generally support more simple rainforests. • “Notophyll” is a leaf size classification developed by Raunkiær (1934) and modified by Webb (1959). Notophyll rainforests generally have canopy trees with leaf sizes between 7.5 and 12.5cm in length most subtropical rainforests are of this class. Microphyll is the next size class down and is the predominant size in some temperate and dry rainforests while mesophyll is the next size class up and typifies tropical rainforests. Subtropical rainforests may support a minority of canopy species with mesophyll and microphyll sized leaves. • “Vineforest” is a classification of forest where the predominant special life form is vines both large and small. Temperate rainforests are classed as fern and or mossy forests under the Webb system, while dryer western communities that have a lower canopy <12 m tall and are still dominated by vines are termed vine thickets.

Within this RE there are a number of species associations or floristic alliances which produce significant variation at the catchment scale. For example, lower terraces on the main river channel and tributaries support forest of massive stature of the White Booyong Alliance of Floyd (Floyd 1990). Canopy heights are 35-45 m with emergents to >60m dominant trees in the main canopy include White Booyong (Argyrodendron trifoliatum), Black Bean (Castanospermum australe), Giant Water Gum (Syzygium fransisii), Brown Walnut (Beilschmedia obtusifolia) and other laurels including Endiandra discolor, Cryptocarya macdonaldii and C. obovata or C. hypospodia.

This massive stature contrasts with vegetation on Coles Creek which supports a dryer vine forest community with an increased proportion of microphyll sized (2.5-7.5cm long) canopy leaves and prominent facultative deciduous species such as Melia azedarach, Flindersia australis, Grevillea robusta and Ehretia acuminata.

Within the Mary River catchment, this RE is characterised by twenty dominant and sub-dominant tree species, these are listed in Table G-1 below.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page G-8

Table G-1 Characteristic species of RE 12.3.1 in the Mary Catchment

Species Sucessional Stage/ Seed Type & Vector/ Location Deciduousness Argyrodendron trifoliolatum Dominant/ Mature Phase/ Wind Dispersed Lower Alluvial Terraces Castanospermum australe Dominant/ Mature Phase/ Large Seeded/ Lower Alluvial Terraces Water/ Rodent Dispersed Cryptocarya macdonaldii Dominant/ Late Secondary/ Bird Bat Lower Alluvial Terraces Dispersed Cryptocarya obovata Co Dominant/ Late Secondary/ Bird Bat Lower Alluvial Terraces Dispersed Cryptocarya hypospodia Co Dominant/ Late Secondary/ Bird Bat Lower Alluvial Terraces Dispersed Beilschmiedia obtusifolia Dominant/ Late Secondary/ Bird Bat Lower Alluvial Terraces Dispersed Endiandra discolor Dominant/ Late Secondary/ Bird Bat Lower Alluvial Terraces Dispersed Endiandra pubens Sub Dominant Sub Canopy / Mature Phase/ Lower Alluvial Terraces Large Seeded/ Water / Rodent Dispersed Waterhousea floribunda Sub Dominant in Regrowth/ Late Fringing Stream Banks Secondary Aphananthe philippinensis Dominant Sub Canopy/ Late Secondary/ Lower and Upper Alluvial Bird Bat Dispersed Terraces Streblus brunonianus Dominant Sub Canopy/ Late Secondary/ Lower and Upper Alluvial Bird Bat Dispersed Terraces Endiandra muelleri subsp. Dominant Sub Canopy/ Late Secondary/ Lower Alluvial Terraces muelleri Bird Bat Dispersed Pouteria australis Dominant Sub Canopy/ Mature Phase/ Lower Alluvial Terraces Large Fruited Water Rodent Dispersed Ficus macrophylla Dominant Emergent/ Late Secondary/ Bird Lower and Upper Alluvial Bat Dispersed Terraces Ficus obliqua Dominant Emergent/ Late Secondary/ Bird Lower and Upper Alluvial Bat Dispersed Terraces Ficus watkinsiana Dominant Emergent/ Late Secondary/ Bird Lower and Upper Alluvial Bat Dispersed Terraces Ficus virens Dominant Emergent/ Late Secondary/ Bird Lower and Upper Alluvial Bat Dispersed Terraces Syzygium francisii Dominant/ Late Secondary/ Bird Bat Lower and Upper Alluvial Dispersed Terraces Ficus coronata Dominant Sub Canopy/ Late Secondary/ Lower and Upper Alluvial Bird Bat Dispersed Terraces Harpullia pendula Dominant Sub Canopy/ Late Secondary/ Lower and Upper Alluvial Bird Bat Dispersed Terraces Ehretia acuminata Dominant Sub Canopy/ Late Secondary/ Lower and Upper Alluvial Bird Bat Dispersed/ Frost Tolerant Terraces Grevillea robusta Co Dominant/ Late Secondary/ Wind Upper Alluvial Terraces/ Dispersed/ Semi Deciduous Intermittent streams Alphitonia excelsa Co Dominant/ Early Secondary/ Bird and Disturbed areas rainforest Ant Dispersed margins

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page G-9

Species Sucessional Stage/ Seed Type & Vector/ Location Deciduousness Acacia bakeri Dominant/ Mature Phase/ Ant Dispersed Upper Alluvial Terraces/ Intermittent streams Flindersia australis Dominant/ Late Secondary/ Wind Upper Alluvial Terraces/ Dispersed/ Semi Deciduous Intermittent streams Flindersia schottiana Dominant/ Late Secondary/ Wind Dispersed Upper Alluvial Terraces/ Intermittent streams Syzygium luehmannii Co Dominant/ Late Secondary/ Bird Bat Upper and Lower Alluvial Dispersed Terraces/ Intermittent streams Melia azedarach Dominant/ Late Secondary/ Bird Bat Upper and Lower Alluvial Dispersed / Semi Deciduous Terraces/ Intermittent streams Rhodamnia argentea Co Dominant/ Late Secondary/ Bird Bat Upper and Lower Alluvial Dispersed Terraces Mischocarpus australis Co Dominant/ Late Secondary/ Bird Bat Upper and Lower Alluvial Dispersed Terraces

Species in plantings will primarily be composed of dominant canopy species, as one of the main goals of rainforest restoration is to establish a diverse closed canopy. Other species not dominating the canopy and recorded from the Mary River Catchment will be included in plantings to increase diversity and add special life forms which will increase the progress in some measures towards the benchmark state without waiting for natural colonisation of these species. A list of species recorded from RE 12.3.1 in the Mary Valley or total planting palate are listed in Appendix H. It is recommended that this list will be updated as species records from site inspections or other reliable data sources such as the EPA Corveg framework become available.

Separate planting lists will be developed for each sub alliance including:

• Argyrodendron trifoliolatum, Castanospermum, Beilschmiedia obtusifolia, Endiandra discolor, Syzygium spp., Ficus spp. Cryptocarya spp; • Syzygium (Waterhousea) floribundum, Beilschmiedia obtusifolia, Endiandra spp., Cryptocarya macdonaldii, Streblus brunonianus; • Flindersia spp., Melia spp., Grevillea robusta, Aphananthe spp., Acacia bakeri, Ficus spp.

Sites for regeneration will be selected according to topography and assessed for fire probability, for example tight meanders favour rainforest development as they exclude fires. Sites with tight stream meanders, deep fertile soil and lower alluvial terraces are likely to be suitable for sub alliance A.

Stream width and status as permanent or temporary will be taken into account with B sub alliance being selected for islands and wide stream channels and C. sub alliance being selected for ephemeral streams or otherwise dry sites.

Species will be zoned within each planting according to their topographical preference for growing on banks lower terraces upper terraces or floodplains or a combination of these zones.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page G-10

REGIONAL ECOSYSTEM 12.3.7 Benchmark Data Benchmark data have not yet been collected for RE 12.3.7 using the methodology presented in Section 5.3.1 of this report. However, preliminary benchmark information can be derived from 3D environmental EIS flora survey if required.

Planting Model This community has both sclerophyll and rainforest elements. Sclerophyll elements persist in this regional ecosystem as a result of disturbance such as fire or flood. Casuarina cunninghamiana and Melaleuca (Callistemon) viminalis are riparian specialist sclerophyll species that colonise bare riparian areas of rock and silt such as banks and islands left unvegetated after scouring by floodwaters. Syzygium (Waterhousea) floribundum is a similar riparian coloniser that is representative of the rainforest flora. Melaleuca bracteata and Eucalyptus tereticornis are sclerophyll species that occur on the high bank and floodplains and regenerate after fire. Grevillea robusta is a rainforest species that occupies a similar niche on the high bank. A variety of other rainforest species such as, Aphananthe philippinensis, Streblus brunonianus and Ficus coronata also occur in this community and are also elements of RE 12.3.1.

Fire and flood regimes dictate the frequency of rainforest and sclerophyll species in this community, with more frequently and or intensely burned areas supporting more sclerophyll species and native grasses (including Imperata and Themeda) and less frequently burned areas supporting more rainforest trees and shrubs with scattered large remnant Eucalyptus tereticornis unable to regenerate seedlings until the next fire. Similarly areas that are more frequently disturbed by flood support higher abundances C. cunninghamiana and M. viminalis.

The ground cover in this community is very important in maintaining bank and stream bed stability, species of sedges and mat rushes naturally occurring in this community are adapted to high water velocities and have extensive strong fibrous root systems. Examples include Lomandra hystrix occurring mainly on lower banks and Carex fascicularis occurring mainly in the stream channel.

The planting model used will to take into account this dynamic between rainforest and sclerophyll species and the need to establish groundcover to withstand high velocity floodwater and stabilise banks and stream beds.

It is probable that many areas mapped by the EPA as RE 12.3.1 in the Mary River catchment once supported this community prior to logging as evidenced by the presence of remnant stumps of Casuarina cunninghamiana under the current canopy of Syzygium (Waterhousea) floribundum. Conversely is it also probable that areas historically supporting RE 12.3.1 have been colonised by C. cunninghamiana as a result of changes in-stream morphology after clearing of the riparian rainforest. Areas selected for the restoration of this community currently supporting Casuarina cunninghamiana or with stumps of this species in evidence.

Species Mix The Regional Ecosystem Description Database (REDD) maintained by the EPA provides some floristic information for RE 12.3.7:

“Eucalyptus tereticornis, Melaleuca viminalis, Casuarina cunninghamiana fringing forest. A narrow fringing community of Eucalyptus tereticornis, Melaleuca viminalis, Casuarina cunninghamiana ± Waterhousea floribunda. Other species associated with this RE include Melaleuca bracteata, M. trichostachya and M. fluviatilis in north of bioregion. Lomandra hystrix often present in-stream beds. Occurs on Quaternary alluvial plains along watercourses. Major vegetation communities include: 12.3.7a: Riverine wetland or fringing riverine wetland. Melaleuca bracteata open-forest.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page G-11

Occurs in drainage depressions on Quaternary alluvial plains. 12.3.7b: Riverine wetland or fringing riverine wetland. Naturally occurring waterholes and lagoons, both permanent and intermittent. Includes exposed stream bed and bars. Occurs in the bed of active (may be intermittent) river channels. 12.3.7c: Palustrine wetland (e.g. vegetated swamp). Billabongs and ox-bow lakes containing either permanent or periodic water bodies. Old river beds now cut off from regular flow. 12.3.7d: Palustrine wetland (e.g. vegetated swamp). Aquatic vegetation usually fringed with Eucalyptus tereticornis. Closed depressions on alluvial plains.”

The proportion of sclerophyll and rainforest species included in plantings will be determined based on an assessment of estimated fire frequency for each site. 3D Environmental (2007) noted that Melaleuca (Callistemon) viminalis was not prevalent in the Mary River Catchment so this species will not be a feature of the plantings. Dominant species to be included in the plantings are outlined in Table G-2 below. Available records for all species in this RE from the Mary Valley are included in Appendix H.

Table G-2 Dominant species in RE12.3.7 at benchmark sites the Mary Valley

Species Abundance Layer / Rainforest or Location Sclerophyll/ Regeneration Trigger Casuarina cunninghamiana Dominant/ Sclerophyll / Flood disturbance Banks and Islands Castanospermum australe Co dominant/ Rainforest/ Lack of fire Lower Alluvial Terraces Grevillea robusta Co dominant/Rainforest/ Lack of fire Lower Alluvial Terraces Syzygium floribundum Dominant/ Rainforest/ Flood disturbance Lower Alluvial Terraces/ Bank Aphananthe philippinensis Co dominant/ Rainforest/ Lack of fire Lower and Upper Alluvial Terraces Streblus brunonianus Occasional/ Rainforest/ Lack of fire Lower Alluvial Terraces Melaleuca viminalis Occasional/ Sclerophyll / Flood disturbance Lower Alluvial Terraces Melaleuca bracteata Co dominant / Sclerophyll/ Fire Alluvial Terraces/ Floodplain Lophostemon suaveolens Co dominant / Sclerophyll/ Fire Alluvial Terraces/ Floodplain Ficus coronata Occasional/ Rainforest/ Lack of Fire Lower Alluvial Terraces Eucalyptus tereticornis Dominant/ Sclerophyll / Fire Bank/ Floodplain Lomandra hystrix Dominant Ground Layer/ Flood disturbance Bank and Toe Carex fascicularis Dominant Ground Layer / Flood disturbance Stream Bed and Toe.

REGIONAL ECOSYSTEM 12.3.11 Benchmark Data Benchmark data have not yet been collected for RE 12.3.11 using the methodology presented in Section 5.3.1 of this report. The 3D Environmental flora survey for the Traveston Crossing Dam EIS did not assess a Benchmark site for RE 12.3.11 however did nominate a suitable benchmark site that they assessed at Quaternary level due to access restrictions. They recorded a dominance of Eucalyptus tereticornis to 37m tall with associated Corymbia intermedia and Eucalyptus siderophloia. Sub canopy layers were dominated Lophostemon suaveolens, Alphitonia excelsa and Acacia disparrima by Additional benchmark data on structure and species dominance may need to be collected from this site (Camping Reserve Lot 188/M37834) for monitoring purposes by SKM, or at a similar site if access cannot be obtained to this site.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page G-12

Floristic variation in this RE was noted at Yabba Creek which was dominated by E. propinqua with the E. tereticornis, C. intermedia and E. siderophloia as subdominant canopy species overtopping a vine forest understorey. The development of vine forest understorey at this site is likely due to a decreased frequency and or intensity of fire regime allowing the regeneration of rainforest species probably from seeds transported by birds or bats.

Planting Model This community is predominantly a typical sclerophyll community however in some sites within the Mary Valley it was noted that the fire regime had allowed the development of a vine forest understorey at Yabba Ck. In sites outside Yabba creek significant proportions of vine forest species will not be included in plantings. Plant spacing will reflect the open forest structure of the community after allowing for plant mortality and natural self thinning as the community matures. Seeding or tube stock of native grasses and other native groundcovers may be included in some plantings where needed to reduce weed growth and maintenance.

Species Mix The Regional Ecosystem Description Database (REDD) maintained by the EPA provides some floristic information for RE 12.3.11:

“Eucalyptus siderophloia, E. tereticornis, Corymbia intermedia open forest on alluvial plains usually near coast. Open-forest to woodland of Eucalyptus tereticornis, E. siderophloia and Corymbia intermedia. Corymbia tessellaris, Lophostemon suaveolens and Melaleuca quinquenervia frequently occur and often form a low tree layer. Other species present in scattered patches or low densities include Angophora leiocarpa, E. exserta, E. grandis, C. trachyphloia, C. citriodora, E. latisinensis, E. tindaliae, E. racemosa, Melaleuca sieberi and M. viridiflora. E. seeana may be present south of Landsborough. Occurs on Quaternary alluvial plains and drainage lines along coastal lowlands. Rainfall usually exceeds 1000mm/y Major vegetation communities include: 12.3.11a: Open-forest of Eucalyptus siderophloia with vine forest understorey. Other canopy species include Corymbia intermedia, Araucaria cunninghamii and Agathis robusta. Frequently occurring understorey species include Flindersia spp., Lophostemon suaveolens, L. confertus, Cupaniopsis parvifolia, Acronychia spp., Alphitonia excelsa and Acacia disparrima. Occurs on sub-coastal Quaternary alluvial plains. Rainfall usually exceeds 1000mm/y.”

Species selection and proportions will reflect the dominant species from the canopy mid storey and ground layers recorded from this RE within the catchment as outlined in Table G-3 below. Any plantings carried out in the Yabba creek catchment may include Eucalyptus propinqua as a dominant species and a proportion of vine forest species if the planting site is deemed suitable for the development of such a community based on topography and available evidence of fire regimes.

Table G-3 Dominant species in RE12.3.11 at benchmark sites the Mary Valley

Species Abundance Layer / Rainforest or Location Sclerophyll / Regeneration Trigger Eucalyptus tereticornis Dominant / sclerophyll / fire Banks and floodplain Corymbia intermedia Co-dominant / sclerophyll / fire Upper alluvial terraces floodplain Lophostemon suaveolens Co-dominant / sclerophyll / fire Lower alluvial terraces floodplain Eucalyptus propinqua Dominant/ sclerophyll/ fire Upper alluvial terraces/ floodplain

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page G-13

Species Abundance Layer / Rainforest or Location Sclerophyll / Regeneration Trigger Streblus brunonianus Co-dominant/ rainforest / lack of fire Lower and upper alluvial terraces Mallotus philippensis Occasional / rainforest / lack of fire Lower alluvial terraces Callistemon salignus Occasional / sclerophyll / fire Upper alluvial terraces floodplain Aphananthe philippinensis Occasional / rainforest / lack of fire Alluvial terraces / floodplain Acacia disparrima subsp. Co-dominant / sclerophyll / fire or other Disturbed areas open areas disparrima disturbance Guioa semiglauca Occasional / rainforest / lack of fire Lower alluvial terraces Glochidion ferdinandi var. Dominant / rainforest / lack of fire Bank / floodplain ferdinandi Eucalyptus siderophloia Co-dominant / sclerophyll / fire Upper terraces and floodplain Cupaniopsis parviflora Occasional rainforest / lack of fire Lower and upper alluvial terraces Cryptocarya triplinervis var. Occasional / rainforest / lack of fire Lower alluvial terraces triplinervis Aphananthe philippinensis Co-dominant / rainforest / lack of fire Lower alluvial terraces Alphitonia excelsa Co-dominant / rainforest Disturbed areas Themeda triandra Dominant ground layer / fire Floodplain Doodia aspera Dominant ground layer / lack of fire Bank and toe Breynia oblongifolia Occasional ground layer All Cissus antarctica Vine All Oplismenus aemulus Dominant ground layer All Smilax australis Vine All

G.1.7 ASSESSMENT OF RESILIENCE Ecosystem resilience is a function of remnant size, degradation processes, species diversity and landscape concept. In determining the most appropriate rehabilitation treatment for each patch of vegetation within a priority reach, an assessment of resilience will be made using the criteria presented in Table G-4 below.

Table G-4 Criteria for determining site resilience and type of management

Site Pristine Large Intermediate Isolated small Degraded Condition Remnant/ remnant/ early Mature regrowth regrowth Resilience High High/ Medium Medium Medium/ Low Low Cost Low High Native High diversity Medium Variety of Limited number Few or no native Species of native diversity of native species of native species species present. Diversity species from native species present present Most or all mature including including most representing structurally and successional mature and structurally and mostly early functionally species stages some early functionally sucessional and missing.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page G-14

Site Pristine Large Intermediate Isolated small Degraded Condition Remnant/ remnant/ early Mature regrowth regrowth present. sucessional important disturbance Native species if species. species and adapted species. present represent many early Some functionally early successional sucessional and structurally and disturbance species important species adapted species. missing Exotic No exotic Exotic species Exotic species Exotic species Exotic species Species species present as in dense diverse and in dominant and (Weeds) present or dense infestations some large diverse within single low infestation in though limited dense infestations impact easily limited area or mostly to infestations containing multiple controlled sparse edges and or containing some high impact and or species scattered canopy gaps. high impact and difficult to control present in infestations A variety of or difficult to species limited area over large weeds present control species. area. with few high Exotic species impact or present are difficult to few in number control and or easily species. controlled Appropriate Conservation Assisted Combination of Ecosystem Rehabilitation Manageme Management Natural Regeneration Reconstruction/ Can the site still nt Prevent weed Regeneration and Revegetation. support original incursion Exclude stock Revegetation. Exclude stock ecosystem? Manage fire Control Exclude stock Control weeds If yes: within weeds Control weeds Manage fire Exclude stock guidelines for Manage fire Manage fire within guideline Control weeds particular within within for particular Replant with ecosystem. guidelines for guidelines for ecosystem. representative Control feral particular particular Replant with species mix and animals ecosystem. ecosystem. representative proportions in all Monitor Monitor natural species mix and areas. (Note: natural regeneration in proportions in Expensive would regeneration. less degraded extensive funds be better spent areas. degraded areas. at another less Replant with degraded site?) representative If No: species mix Control weeds. and Replant with proportions in disturbance adapted more degraded native species areas. appropriate for new degraded site conditions.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page G-15

APPENDIX H SPECIES LISTS RELEVANT ECOSYSTEMS

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page H-1

H.1 Species Recorded from RE 12.3.1 in the Mary Valley

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page H-2

Genus Species Subspecies Genus Species Subspecies Acacia bakeri Cinnamomum oliveri Acacia melanoxylon Cissus antarctica Acronychia oblongifolia Citrus australis Adiantum aethiopicum Clausena brevistyla Adiantum hispidulum Cleistanthus cunninghamii Alchornea ilicifolia Clematocissus opaca Alectryon reticulatus Clerodendrum floribundum Alectryon subcinereus Coatesia paniculata Alectryon tomentosus var. Cordyline rubra tomentosus Croton insularis Alocasia brisbanensis Croton verreauxii Alphitonia excelsa Cryptocarya glaucescens Alyxia ruscifolia subsp. ruscifolia Cryptocarya hypospodia Aneilema acuminatum Cryptocarya laevigata Aneilema biflorum Cryptocarya macdonaldii Aphananthe philippinensis Cryptocarya obovata Archontophoenix cunninghamiana Cryptocarya triplinervis var. pubens Argyrodendron trifoliolatum Cryptocarya triplinervis var. Arthropteris tenella triplinervis Arytera distylis Cupaniopsis parviflora Arytera divaricata Cupaniopsis serrata Arytera foveolata Cynanchum bowmanii Asplenium attenuatum Dendrobium gracilicaule Asplenium australasicum Dendrobium speciosum Atractocarpus chartaceus Dendrobium tetragonum Auranticarpa rhombifolia Dioscorea transversa Beilschmiedia elliptica Diospyros australis Beilschmiedia obtusifolia Diospyros fasciculosa Brachychiton discolor Diospyros geminata Breynia oblongifolia Diospyros pentamera Brunoniella spiciflora Diplazium assimile Caesalpinia scortechinii Diploglottis australis Calamus muelleri Doodia aspera Callerya megasperma Doodia caudata Capparis arborea Drypetes deplanchei Capparis sarmentosa Dysoxylum rufum Carissa ovata Ehretia acuminata Carronia multisepalea Elaeocarpus obovatus Castanospermum australe Elattostachys nervosa Cayratia clematidea Embelia australiana Choricarpia subargentea Endiandra discolor Christella dentata Endiandra muelleri subsp. muelleri

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page H-3

Genus Species Subspecies Genus Species Subspecies Endiandra pubens Maclura cochinchinensis Erythroxylum sp. (Stockyard Ck L. Mallotus claoxyloides Pedley 5360) Mallotus mollissimus Eucalyptus grandis Mallotus philippensis Eucalyptus tereticornis Maytenus dispermus Eupomatia bennettii Melia azedarach Eupomatia laurina Melodinus acutifolius Euroschinus falcata var. falcata Melodinus australis Ficus coronata Melodorum leichhardtii Ficus fraseri Mischocarpus anodontus Ficus macrophylla Mischocarpus australis Ficus obliqua var. petiolaris Morinda jasminoides Ficus virens var. sublanceolata Morinda umbellata Ficus watkinsiana Myrsine variabilis Flagellaria indica Neolitsea dealbata Flindersia australis Nyssanthes diffusa Flindersia schottiana Olea paniculata Flindersia xanthoxyla Oplismenus aemulus Geitonoplesium cymosum Oplismenus hirtellus subsp. Gossia acmenoides imbecillis Gossia bidwillii Ottochloa gracillima Grevillea robusta Pandora pandorana Guioa semiglauca Pararchidendron pruinosum Harpullia hillii Parsonsia straminea Hippocratea barbata Parsonsia ventricosa Hymenosporum flavum Pavetta australiensis Hypoestes floribunda Phyllanthus microcladus Jagera pseudorhus var. Pittosporum multiflorum pseudorhus Pittosporum revolutum Jasminum dallachii Platycerium superbum Jasminum didymum subsp. Plectranthus parviflorus racemosum Pleogyne australis Jasminum simplicifolium ssp. australiense Proiphys cunninghamii Lastreopsis marginans Polyalthia nitidissima Lastreopsis microsora Polyscias elegans Lastreopsis munita Pothos longipes Legnephora moorei Pouteria australis Linospadix monostachya Pouteria myrsinifolia Litsea reticulata Pouteria pohlmaniana Lomandra hystrix Pseuderanthemum variabile Lomandra longifolia Psychotria daphnoides var. daphnoides Lophostemon suaveolens

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page H-4

Genus Species Subspecies Psychotria loniceroides Psydrax lamprophylla forma lamprophylla Psydrax odoratum subsp. buxifolia Rhodamnia argentea Rhodosphaera rhodanthema Ripogonum album Ripogonum brevifolium Scolopia braunii Smilax australis Solanum stelligerum Stephania japonica var. discolor Streblus brunonianus Syzygium australe Syzygium francisii Syzygium luehmannii Tabernaemontana pandacaqui Tetrastigma nitens Toechima tenax Trophis scandens Tylophora paniculata Ventilago pubifolia Vitex lignum-vitae Waterhousea floribunda Wilkiea macrophylla

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page H-5

H.2 Species Recorded from RE 12.3.7 in the Mary Valley

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page H-6

Genus Species Subspecies Genus Species Subspecies Acacia disparrima subsp. Cupaniopsis parviflora disparrima Dendrocnide photinophylla Acacia melanoxylon Dianella longifolia var. longifolia Achyranthes aspera Diospyros australis Acronychia oblongifolia Diospyros geminata Adiantum aethiopicum Diospyros pentamera Adiantum formosum Doodia aspera Adiantum hispidulum Doodia caudata Adiantum silvaticum Drypetes deplanchei Alectryon subcinereus Dysoxylum rufum Alectryon tomentosus var. Elattostachys nervosa tomentosus Endiandra muelleri subsp. Alphitonia excelsa muelleri Aphananthe philippinensis Endiandra pubens Araucaria bidwillii Eucalyptus tereticornis Argyrodendron trifoliolatum Euroschinus falcata var. falcata Arytera distylis Eustrephus latifolius Arytera divaricata Ficus coronata Atractocarpus chartaceus Ficus fraseri Austrosteenisia blackii var. blackii Ficus obliqua var. petiolaris Breynia oblongifolia Flindersia schottiana Bridelia exaltata Geitonoplesium cymosum Calamus muelleri Glycine clandestina Callerya megasperma Gossia acmenoides Callistemon viminalis Grevillea robusta Castanospermum australe Hymenosporum flavum Casuarina cunninghamiana Imperata cylindrica Cayratia clematidea Jasminum simplicifolium subsp. Choricarpia subargentea (Rare) australiense Christella dentata Legnephora moorei Cissus antarctica Lobelia purpurascens Citrus australis Lomandra longifolia Cleistanthus cunninghamii Maclura cochinchinensis Clerodendron floribunda Mallotus claoxyloides Commelina diffusa Mallotus philippensis Cordyline rubra Melaleuca bracteata Cryptocarya bidwillii Melia azedarach Cryptocarya obovata Melodorum leichhardtii Cryptocarya triplinervis var. Morinda jasminoides pubens Neolitsea dealbata Cryptocarya triplinervis var. Olea paniculata triplinervis

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page H-7

Genus Species Subspecies Oplismenus aemulus Oplismenus hirtellus subsp. imbecillis Ottochloa gracillima Pandora pandorana Pararchidendron pruinosum Parsonsia straminea Pavetta australiensis Phyllanthus microcladus Pipturus argenteus Pittosporum revolutum Pleogyne australis Pseuderanthemum variabile Pteridium esculentum Rhodomyrtus psidioides Ripogonum album Senna sophera var. sophera Smilax australis Stephania japonica var. discolor Sterculia quadrifida Streblus brunonianus Syzygium australe Tabernaemontana pandacaqui Toechima tenax Tristaniopsis laurina Trophis scandens Waterhousea floribunda Wikstroemia indica 3D Environmental Data

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page H-8

H.3 Species Recorded from RE 12.3.11 in the Mary Valley

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page H-9

Genus Species Subspecies Genus Species Subspecies Abutilon oxycarpum Cordyline rubra Acacia disparrima subsp. Corymbia intermedia disparrima Corymbia tessellaris Acacia maidenii Cryptocarya laevigata Acacia melanoxylon Cryptocarya obovata Acmena smithii Cryptocarya triplinervis var. Acronychia oblongifolia pubens Adiantum aethiopicum Cryptocarya triplinervis var. Adiantum hispidulum triplinervis Alchornea ilicifolia Cupaniopsis parviflora Alectryon tomentosus var. Cupaniopsis serrata tomentosus Cyanthillium cinereum Alocasia brisbanensis Cymbopogon refractus Alphitonia excelsa Dendrobium tetragonum Alyxia ruscifolia subsp. ruscifolia Desmodium rhytidophyllum Aphananthe philippinensis Dianella brevipedunculata Araucaria cunninghamii Dianella caerulea var. asserta Argyrodendron trifoliolatum Dinosperma erythrococcum Arytera divaricata Dioscorea transversa Arytera foveolata Diospyros geminata Asplenium attenuatum Diplazium assimile Austrosteenisia blackii var. blackii Diploglottis australis Backhousia citriodora Doodia aspera Backhousia myrtifolia Doodia caudata Breynia oblongifolia Drypetes deplanchei Bridelia exaltata Elaeocarpus obovatus Caesalpinia subtropica Elattostachys nervosa Calamus muelleri Embelia australiana Callicarpa pedunculata Endiandra muelleri subsp. Callistemon salignus muelleri Carissa ovata Entolasia stricta Castanospermum australe Eragrostis sp. (TS88/33) Choricarpia subargentea (Rare) Eucalyptus grandis Christella dentata Eucalyptus microcorys Cissus antarctica Eucalyptus propinqua Citrus australis Eucalyptus siderophloia Cleistanthus cunninghamii Eucalyptus tereticornis Clerodendron floribunda Eupomatia laurina Commelina diffusa Eustrephus latifolius Commersonia bartramia Ficus coronata Commersonia fraseri Flagellaria indica Cordyline petiolaris Flindersia schottiana

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page H-10

Genus Species Subspecies Genus Species Subspecies Geitonoplesium cymosum Pilidiostigma rhytispermum Glochidion ferdinandi var. Pittosporum ferrugineum ferdinandi Pittosporum multiflorum Glochidion ferdinandi var. pubens Pleogyne australis Glycine clandestina Polyscias elegans Guioa semiglauca Pseuderanthemum variabile Hibiscus divaricatus Psychotria loniceroides Hovea acutifolia Psychotria simmondsiana Imperata cylindrica Pteridium esculentum Jagera pseudorhus var. Rhodamnia rubescens pseudorhus Rhodomyrtus psidioides Jasminum simplicifolium subsp. australiense Rhodosphaera rhodanthema Lastreopsis marginans Ripogonum album Legnephora moorei Scleria sphacelata Lobelia purpurascens Scolopia braunii Lomandra confertiflora subsp. Siphonodon australis pallida Smilax australis Lomandra longifolia Solanum stelligerum Lophostemon confertus Stenocarpus sinuatus Lophostemon suaveolens Stephania japonica var. discolor Maclura cochinchinensis Streblus brunonianus Mallotus claoxyloides Syzygium australe Mallotus discolor Tabernaemontana pandacaqui Mallotus philippensis Themeda triandra Maytenus bilocularis Toechima tenax Melia azedarach Trophis scandens Melodinus acutifolius Vitex melicopea Melodorum leichhardtii Waterhousea floribunda Micromelum minutum Wikstroemia indica Morinda jasminoides Wilkiea macrophylla Myrsine variabilis Zieria smithii subsp. smithii Neolitsea dealbata 3D Environmental Data Homalanthus nutans Oplismenus aemulus Ottochloa gracillima Pandora pandorana Panicum pygmaeum Pararchidendron pruinosum Parsonsia straminea Paspalidium gracile Pavetta australiensis

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page H-11

APPENDIX I WORKED EXAMPLE OF REVEGETATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page I-1

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page I-2

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page I-3

APPENDIX J ATTRIBUTES TO BE MEASURED AT LONG-TERM REVEGETATION MONITORING SITES

Attributes Definition Canopy The projective cover of vegetation (i.e. leaves, branches and trunks) >2 m above ground (foliage) cover level (= shade cast by vegetation >2 m high, if the sun was directly overhead). Canopy The canopy is the layer of foliage forming the ‘roof’ of the forest; it may be broken by gaps height or incomplete. Canopy height is defined as the height of the tallest tree in the canopy within each quadrat. Note: in some sites, it may be necessary to distinguish canopy trees from emergent trees (i.e. trees projecting well above the canopy with crowns exposed on all sides). Ground cover Proportion (%) of ground covered by: (a) vegetation <1 m high (recorded separately for: grass, herbs, ferns, vines and scramblers, trees and shrubs, moss); (b) leaf litter and fine woody debris (<10 cm diameter); (c) coarse woody debris (>10 cm diameter); (d) rock; (e) bare soil; and (f) other. Ground cover is assessed by looking down at a 1 m x 1 m plot from above 1 m above the ground, and scoring what can be seen from this vantage point (as if looking at a photo). The total must = 100%. Special life Plant life forms characteristic of rainforest or particular rainforest types Includes: strangler forms figs, hemi-epiphytes, vines (‘slender’ <5 cm, ‘robust’ >5 cm diameter), vine towers, vine tangles, thorny or thicket-forming scramblers, clumping epiphytic ferns, other epiphytes, tree ferns, ground ferns, palm trees, understorey palms, cordylines, herbs with long wide leaves such as gingers, herbs with strap leaves such as lillies, cycads (either with, or without above-ground stems), pandanus, or any other life forms characteristic of a site (describe). Woody debris Fallen logs/ branches, lying on or within 1 m of the ground. Tallied by diameter class at the point of intersection with a 50 m transect. Diameter classes: 2.5-5 cm, 5-10 cm, 10-20 cm, 20- 30 cm, 30-40 cm, 40-50 cm, 50-75 cm, 75-100 cm, >100 cm. Summarised as fine (<10 cm) and coarse (>10 cm diameter) debris. *Size class Counts of free-standing woody-stemmed plants >1 m high by dbh class: <2.5 cm, 2.5-5 distribution of cm, 5- 10 cm, 10-20 cm, 20-30 cm, 30-40 cm, 40-50 cm, 50-75 cm, 75-100 cm, >100 cm. trees The survey area varies by dbh class: stems <10 cm dbh on 250 m2 per plot; stems 10 – 50 cm on 500 m2 per plot; stems >50 cm on 1000 m2 per plot. Seedlings Live free-standing woody-stemmed plants <1 m high. Identified to species if present within 2.5 m of transect (total area surveyed = 50 m x 5 m per plot). Trees and Live free-standing woody-stemmed plants >1 m high. Identified to species and tallied by shrubs dbh class (= stem diameter 1.3 m above ground) in the following categories: <2.5 cm, 2.5-5 cm, 5-10 cm, 10-20 cm, 20-30 cm, 30-40 cm, 40-50 cm, 50-75 cm, 75-100 cm, >100 cm. The survey area varies with dbh, as follows: Small trees and shrubs (>1 m high, <10 cm dbh) within 2.5 m of transect, on both sides of the transect (area surveyed = 50 m x 5 m = 250 m2 per plot). Medium trees 10 - 50 cm dbh within 5 m of transect, on both sides of the transect (area surveyed = 50 m x 10 m = 500 m2 per plot). Large trees (>50 cm dbh) within 10 m of transect, on both sides of the transect (area surveyed = 50 m x 20 m = 1000 m2 per plot). Assign multi-stemmed plants to a dbh class based on the combined cross-sectional area of stems, using the formula: Combined dbh = √ Σ dbh,2 where √ = square root, Σ= ‘sum’, dbhi is the dbh of each stem. e.g. a tree with 3 stems of 5, 10 and 10 cm dbh, has a combined dbh of 15 cm (i.e. √(25+100+100)). In revegetated sites, record remnant trees separately from planted stems and from

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page J-1

Attributes Definition recruits: e.g. on data sheet, circle planted stems (or recruits – note which), and circle any remnant trees and mark them with an ‘R’ Stags (dead Dead free-standing woody-stemmed plants >10 cm dbh, tallied by dbh class: 10-20 cm, trees) 20-30 cm, 30-40 cm, 40-50 cm, 50-75 cm, 75-100 cm, >100 cm. The survey area is the same as for trees: stag 10 - 50 cm dbh within 5 m of transect (i.e. 50 m x 10 m per plot), stags >50 cm dbh within 10 m of transect (i.e. 50 m x 20 m per plot). Estimate the height of each stag (for estimates of carbon sequestration). Other life All plants other than trees and shrubs. Identified to species on three 10 m x 10 m quadrats forms: e.g. per plot, centred on the 5 m, 25 m and 45 m points of the transect. For ground covers vines, ground (ferns, herbs, grasses and scramblers), estimate % cover in each quadrat (note, in a 10 m covers, x 10 m quadrat, 1 m2 = 1% cover). (b) For vines, epiphytes and other life forms, note epiphytes presence in each quadrat

Traveston Crossing Dam – Habitat Restoration Plan Page J-2

Freshwater Species Conservation Centre Overview APPENDIX E FRESHWATER SPECIES FRESHWATER CONSERVATION CENTRE CONSERVATION

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 2. SCOPE AND AIMS 2-1 3. OPERATIONS AND STRUCTURE 3-1 4. SCIENTIFIC ADVISERS 4-1 5. OTHER PROGRAMS 5-3 6. CSIRO 6-1 7. PROGRAM OF ACTIVITY 7-1 7.1 Mary River Cod 7-2 7.2 Queensland Lungfish 7-5 7.3 Mary River Turtle 7-7 7.4 Giant Barred Frog 7-9 8. LOCATION AND DESIGN 8-1

Traveston Crossing Dam – Overview of FSCC Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION

On 10 October 2007, Queensland Premier Anna Bligh announced the provision of $35 million for a Freshwater Species Conservation Centre (FSCC) to study and protect the Mary River’s freshwater species and to ensure their ongoing survival, subject to approval of the Traveston Crossing Dam Project (the Project). The focus of the FSCC will be to improve knowledge about the biology and ecology of the four species of National Environmental Significance (NES) in the Mary River catchment – the Mary River Cod (Maccullochella peelii mariensis), Mary River Turtle (Elusor macrurus), Queensland Lungfish (Neoceratodus forsteri) and Giant Barred Frog (Mixophyes iteratus) (the four NES species).

The FSCC will include operational and research funding for 10 years post Project approval, for the implementation of research findings and funding of staff. It will be operated by The University of Queensland (UQ) under a Memorandum of Understanding, supported by a multi-disciplinary Scientific Advisory Panel, and outcomes independently reviewed by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).

Since 2007, development of the FSCC has progressed from an initial concept to a construction- ready facility. This has been achieved via meetings with key scientific advisers, architects, construction managers and formation of a UQ User Group to develop concept designs, targeted research outcomes, a research program and education awareness strategy.

Key milestones to date have been:

• Signed Memorandum of Understanding with UQ; • Research and implementation program developed; • Detailed designs of facility completed by architectural consultants; • Geotechnical investigations and structural engineering progressed; and • Construction manager appointed.

Upon State and Federal Government approval of the Project, pre-construction activities will commence, and the research and implementation program will be finalised in consultation with key scientific advisers.

QWI propose to use the Garapine facility as an interim measure to enable the commencement of the FSCC immediately upon project approval.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Overview of FSCC Page 1-1

2. SCOPE AND AIMS

The primary goal of the FSCC is the development and implementation of actions that ensure the survival and improve the status of the four NES species. The former goal (ensure the survival) is the minimum target while the latter (improve the status) is the ultimate goal.

Future research is vitally important to improve knowledge about the four NES species and to provide sound ecological direction to species-specific management actions and habitat restoration works.

The FSCC will be an active research hub with a purpose-built facility that runs two streams of research, Applied Research and Academic Research.

The first stream, Applied Research (i.e. under contract to QWI), will focus on specific research outcomes in connection with the Project that assist with the direct management of the four NES species. This research will complement and inform habitat rehabilitation and restoration activities outlined in the Habitat Restoration Plan (HRP) as well as a range of species-specific mitigation measures. The research outcomes will not only contribute to the success of mitigation measures and offsets within the Mary River catchment, but will also provide key information for future conservation management efforts elsewhere throughout the species' distribution range.

The second stream, Academic Research, will enhance the overall knowledge of the biology and ecology of the four NES species. Examples of research under this stream include Honours, Masters and PhD projects supervised by researchers based at UQ or other universities on particular biological or ecological aspects of the NES species.

Being the focal point of research for the four NES species, the combined knowledge of the specialist researchers for each species will be ‘under one roof’. The knowledge gained from in-field research of each species will enable development of adaptive management techniques to be applied to habitat restoration and mitigation measures.

Environmental flow and release strategies for the storage will also be developed in conjunction with the Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP). These will be optimised to ensure that appropriate seasonal releases are made at appropriate times of year to ensure habitat, food and breeding cycles are maintained.

An additional role of the FSCC will be to enhance awareness of conservation activities associated with the four NES species. An Environment Education Centre will form part of the FSCC which will comprise public displays and interactive areas. The University of the Sunshine Coast and Queensland Museum will assist with the development of education programs for this Centre.

The CSIRO will provide a continuing independent third party reviewer role, to ensure that the research has been designed and conducted appropriately, and that the findings have been integrated into the relevant aspects of the Project, as well as the subsequent management operations, including the ongoing monitoring.

The establishment of the FSCC reflects QWI's commitment to build and operate a Project in an environmentally responsible way, by facilitating and supporting continued research efforts across four NES species. UQ’s involvement will ensure that the standard of research will be scientifically rigorous.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Overview of FSCC Page 2-1

In summary, the overall objectives of the FSCC are to:

• Conduct applied research projects, under contract with QWI, to provide scientific direction to species mitigation measures and habitat restoration works, including monitoring the effectiveness of these actions; • Provide scientific advice (via the Scientific Advisory Panel) on environmental flow requirements of the four NES species as input to the Project’s operational release strategy; • Conduct academic research to enhance overall biological and ecological knowledge about the four NES species; • Enhance awareness of the local community and visitors from elsewhere about the four NES species and associated conservation effort via an Environment Education Centre; and • Provide reviewable outcomes that meet relevant criteria set by CSIRO for the Project under the three key Sustainability Principles (Sustainable Ecological Catchments, Sustainable Local Enterprises and Sustainable Communities).

Refer to Section 7 for an overview of Applied Research and Academic Research activities.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Overview of FSCC Page 2-2

3. OPERATIONS AND STRUCTURE

QWI and UQ have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to work collaboratively for the design and construction of the FSCC. In addition the MOU envisages UQ operating the centre for a period of ten (10) years. On approval of the Project, QWI and UQ will further formalise contractual arrangements for the development and operation of the FSCC.

The work and budget of the FSCC will be overseen by a Board, with a SAP appointed to advise, guide and inform the development of the FSCC and research. In addition, the CSIRO will be appointed to provide an annual review of the research outcomes delivered by the FSCC.

A centre Director will manage the day-to-day business of the facility, and research scientists will undertake both the applied and academic research programs, with the support of research assistants and a database manager/ biometrician.

A $35M funding commitment for construction and operation of the FSCC has been made by the Queensland Government. This includes $7M for construction and development of the Centre, and $28M over 10 years for research operations, staffing and ongoing research.

Funding for 10 years provides a realistic time frame to allow for staff recruitment, construction of infrastructure and achieving success in the targeted research, together with implementation of the results.

Beyond the 10 years, the facility has the real prospect of continuing as a broadly based freshwater species research facility, funded by national and international research grant schemes and, with the Environmental Education Centre, becoming self supporting.

The proposed FSCC is a significant commitment which will provide an unprecedented opportunity to establish a world class research and educational facility in SEQ.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Overview of FSCC Page 3-1

4. SCIENTIFIC ADVISERS

QWI has consulted with a broad range of leading scientists in developing the design, operational structure, targeted research and environmental education centre for the FSCC.

Through every stage of development, leading scientists and industry specialists have informed the FSCC development. A series of meetings and site visits have been held since October 2007, with a focus on providing guidance and advice on matters such as:

• Providing strategic input into the development of the objectives of the FSCC; • Site selection, and assisting UQ and QWI with the functional architectural design of the FSCC; • Provide guidance and inform the further development of “outcomes” of the research project design; • Likely overall budget and funding mechanisms of the FSCC; and • The recruitment and international search for a Centre Director. A research program developed for the FSCC has been designed based on the assistance of leading scientists (Scientific Advisers). The Scientific Advisers have provided guidance and informed the development of a comprehensive set of mitigation measures to ensure the long term viability of each of the four NES species to be researched at the FSCC.

The selection of the Scientific Advisers was based on their specialist field-based knowledge and extensive academic and research experience in regards to the four NES species. The Scientific Advisers include:

Personnel University / Association Expertise Emeritus Professor University of Queensland Queensland Lungfish, Mary River Cod Gordon Grigg Professor Craig Franklin University of Queensland Mary River Turtle

Associate Professor Griffith University Giant Barred Frog Jean-Marc Hero

In addition to the Scientific Advisers listed above, Dr. Peter Jackson undertook a detailed review of the Mary River Cod Research and Recovery Plan (Environment Australia, 2000) of which he was a co-author. Dr Jackson has over 35 years of experience as a fish ecologist and is the Chairman of the Mary River Cod Recovery Team. Dr. Jackson’s review significantly informed the development of the Proponent’s mitigation measures and addressed other key issues such as research requirements, relating to the Mary River Cod.

The three Scientific Advisers have concluded that the Project, including the research to be undertaken at the FSCC, will provide a unique opportunity to implement a concerted and rigorous set of measures that will result in the restoration and improvement of habitat, and concurrently, provide a significant increase in knowledge on each of the four NES species.

Scientific Advisory Panel On commencement of the development of the FSCC, a SAP will be appointed, comprising leading scientists with a specialist interest in the four NES species.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Overview of FSCC Page 4-1

The Panel’s role will be to advise, guide and inform the development of the FSCC and research effort as follows:

• Assist UQ in the recruitment of appropriate senior staff, in particular for the role of FSCC Director; • Provide FSCC scientific advice to State and Commonwealth Government agencies on matters relevant to the specific research being conducted at the FSCC; • Provide advice and input into the monitoring and evaluation of the research and the development of policies and strategies to achieve the stated outcomes; • Assist the Management of the FSCC to undertake regular reviews of the progress of the outcome-based research projects; • Advise the State and Federal Government on the need for implementation of further recovery measures and/or retrofit and habitat improvement programs required – such measures arising as a result of the outcome-focused research; • Develop and maintain communication links with the broader scientific community; • Actively encourage and develop the status of the FSCC, given the desire of the Queensland Government to establish an internationally recognised freshwater species research centre, through existing professional links; and • Inform and assist the FSCC management to develop an education program with linkages to schools, other education institutions, non-government organisations and relevant government agencies.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Overview of FSCC Page 4-2

5. OTHER PROGRAMS

Work being undertaken at the FSCC will complement other research programs and initiatives undertaken by QWI in relation to the Project with other research Partners.

These include:

Carbon Accounting - Griffith University will provide a carbon accounting system that verifies the planned project carbon offsets against the National Carbon Accounting System and FullCam models of local conditions and tree species. The University will also undertake a continual audit and provide scientific advice to the development of native timber plantations.

Climate Change - University of Southern Queensland will enhance the capability to better manage the development of major projects through understanding seasonal and intra-seasonal climate forecast systems of rainfall and stream flow, and the long term impacts of climate change. The University will also provide understandings for development of suitable landscape and efficient use of shared resources in the catchment area, and provide a scientific audit associated with the sustainable natural resource management programs.

Regional Infrastructure - University of the Sunshine Coast is conducting a longitudinal study to deepen knowledge and understanding of how the activities of major regional infrastructure projects can be identified, facilitated, enhanced and measured, both in the short and long term.

Project Management - Queensland University of Technology will lead research into best practice project management, engineering and planning in the delivery of major infrastructure projects to provide long term, tangible research outcomes and understanding for the field of engineering and project management. The results will assist Government policy makers in maximising regional economic growth and employment from major projects.

CGE Modelling - Monash University is providing CGE modelling (computable general equilibrium model) to determine economy wide effects of the Project.

Recreation Management Planning - James Cook University and Queensland Outdoor Recreation Federation will support recreational management planning and implementation for a greater social and economic return to the community.

Socio-Economic Initiatives - EIDOS Institute, through the University of New England, is currently undertaking a Scoping Study that will provide an overview of a potential evidence-based quantitative and qualitative reporting system required to verify the implementation success of the QWI socio-economic vision for the Project. The scoping study will provide a clear draft vision statement for the social and economic aims of the Project (consistent with the EIS) and details of the activities and investments to be undertaken by QWI, as they relate to this vision.

Interpretive Centre - Queensland Museum will assist the development of an interpretive centre in the Mary Valley. It will be an ongoing resource that captures and displays interactive information about the region, the key species of the area, scientific research, Aboriginal culture and local environment. The facility is to be co-located at the FSCC.

Natural Resource Management - Greening Australia will use the best available science and landscape remediation techniques to identify and implement actions that protect natural assets to restore the health, diversity and productivity of the Mary River. Learnings from the project will be used to support ongoing programs and research.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Overview of FSCC Page 5-1

Habitat Restoration - The Burnett Mary Regional Group, Greening Australia, and Queensland Water and Land Careers in (QWaLC) will assist in the delivery of habitat and vegetation rehabilitation and relevant catchment management initiatives.

Agri-tourism Development - Southern Cross University will provide research and understanding into the benefits and outcomes for the establishment of agri-tourism, and how agri-tourism can lead the economic development and social change for regional areas.

Local Training and Development – Wide Bay TAFE and Sunshine Coast TAFE will provide relevant and targeted training programs to assist in long term development of local employees to meet the needs of major project delivery.

Local Business Development - Australian Industry Engineering Manufacturing Network will provide a series of business development, training and mentoring opportunities to support the Local Industry Participation Plan.

Native Timber Plantations – Timber Queensland will assist in the delivery of a native timber plantation and permanent forests to be established on land owned by QWI. This will provide multiple economic and carbon offset benefits to the Project.

The work being undertaken by research and program partners will be supported on the ground with a series of grassroots programs that complement the overall social, economic and environmental principles established for the Project.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Overview of FSCC Page 5-2

6. CSIRO

The establishment of the FSCC is a direct response to sustainability principles developed by the CSIRO for the Project.

QWI recognised the need for a new approach to the design, delivery and operation of infrastructure based on the principles of sustainable development. As a result, the CSIRO (Sustainable Ecosystems and Water for Healthy Country Flagships) developed a set of Sustainability Principles to guide and inform the design, delivery and operation of the Project.

Specific principles in regards to ecologically sustainable catchments included:

• encourage and facilitate whole catchment restoration of riparian vegetation and wetlands for nature conservation and water quality enhancement; • encourage and facilitate sustainable land management practices in the catchment through knowledge transfer and providing support for appropriate actions; • provide for the conservation of the four NES species through habitat management and any other management practices determined through research; • maintain the health of downstream aquatic ecosystems by mimicking the natural hydrological regime through managed dam releases; and • encourage, facilitate, or support outcome-based research targeted at improving the environmental sustainability of the catchment, aquatic ecosystems, and/or native biodiversity.

The development of the FSCC is a direct response to these principles, forming part of a multi-tiered, whole of species approach including a Habitat Restoration Plan and Implementation Framework.

The CSIRO has provided an expert peer review of the research and responses proposed for the four NES species. The CSIRO Expert Peer Review Panel which undertook this review consists of the following members:

CSIRO Expert Peer Review Panel Personnel Affiliations Title Dr Tom Hatton CSIRO Director, Water for a Healthy Country Flagship Scott Keyworth CSIRO Project Director David Ellis CSIRO Business Manager for CSIRO Land and Water Professor Arthur Georges CSIRO – University of Canberra Professor in Applied Ecology Dr Craig Miller CSIRO Senior Research Scientist - CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems Dr Fredrieke Kroon CSIRO Senior Research Scientist - CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems Frank Lemckert CSIRO – NSW DPI Senior Research Scientist

The outcomes of this review have been taken into consideration in the development of the FSCC, particularly in relation to the research program and outcomes.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Overview of FSCC Page 6-1

Post Project approval, CSIRO will provide a continuing independent third party reviewer role to the FSCC research activities. This will ensure that the research has been designed and conducted appropriately, and that the findings have been appropriately integrated into the relevant aspects of the Project, as well as the subsequent management operations, including the ongoing monitoring.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Overview of FSCC Page 6-2

7. PROGRAM OF ACTIVITY

The FSCC will run two streams of research, Applied Research and Academic Research.

The first stream, Applied Research (i.e. under contract to QWI), will focus on specific research outcomes in connection with the Project that assist with the direct management of the four NES species. This research will complement and inform the Habitat Rehabilitation Plan (HRP) activities and species-specific mitigation measures associated with the Project’s development.

It will also provide scientific input through the Scientific Advisory Panel, for determination of the environmental flows which will be used in the development of the final operational environmental flow release strategy. Overall, this knowledge will not only contribute to the success of mitigation measures and offsets within the Mary River catchment, but will also provide key information for future conservation management efforts elsewhere throughout the species' distribution range.

The second stream, Academic Research, will enhance the overall knowledge of the biology and ecology of the four NES species and others in the region. Given the scientific expertise that will be available through the FSCC, it is also anticipated that the FSCC will become a significant national and international research centre, a venue for post-graduate research and training and, in a relatively short time, will develop the capability to attract commercial linkages and additional research funding.

Detailed below are the targeted programs of activity for each of the four NES species. These are split into three categories of activity: Research and Management, Education and Awareness and Status Evaluation.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Overview of FSCC Page 7-1

7.1 Mary River Cod Outcome Activity

Research and Management

Determine Cod movement ƒ Provide scientific advice to Project designers in order to achieve requirements and design the most construction of appropriately designed upstream and downstream passage facilities. effective transfer devices ƒ Use passive integrated (PIT) tags and remote readers for a large scale investigation of movement patterns throughout the Mary River Cod’s range in the Mary River catchment. ƒ Monitor upstream and downstream passage of Mary River Cod through the fishway. ƒ Identify barriers to Mary River Cod passage. Establish routine procedures for ƒ Develop guidelines for any conservation stocking program, a breeding and rearing practice which has been successfully implemented in the recovery of the Eastern Freshwater Cod in NSW ƒ Enhance captive breeding knowledge and capacity. ƒ Investigate the survival of hatchery-reared Mary River Cod fingerlings in the wild. ƒ Training of Mary River Cod fingerlings on predator avoidance. ƒ Investigate methods for developing a reliable food supply for hatchery-reared fingerlings. Determine the key habitat ƒ Determine the characteristics and distribution of natural spawning requirements for the species sites in riverine reaches of the Mary River system. ƒ Determine whether there are “recruitment hotspots”. ƒ Identify key Mary River Cod habitats within the Mary River and promote the protection of these habitats. Develop methodology that ƒ Investigate spawning and recruitment of Mary River Cod in the maximises the potential for impounded area. breeding in or near water storages ƒ Investigate the use of artificial spawning substrates and monitor recruitment results. ƒ Undertake a population study to determine whether population is breeding. Develop a sound model of ƒ Develop a Predictive Model to describe the population dynamics in population dynamics and the Mary River. recruitment including development ƒ Develop and utilise techniques to determine population of a non-intrusive ageing technique parameters. Investigate the potential impacts of ƒ Determine the population levels of translocated and stocked fish stocking of other fish species on such as golden and silver perch in the Mary River and undertake Mary River Cod field studies to determine their impact on Mary River Cod populations. Capture and mortality rates of ƒ Investigate how many cod are accidentally captured by anglers or hooked Mary River Cod on the survival rates of released fish Implementation of in-stream habitat ƒ Support HRP actions with appropriate monitoring and research (HRP)

Traveston Crossing Dam – Overview of FSCC Page 7-2

Outcome Activity

Implement management measures ƒ Advice to programs for the retention of vegetation around the in the impounded area impounded area, revegetating target fringe areas of the impoundment, and introducing snags and artificial surfaces. Reinstate and reinvigorate the • Oversee production of a revised Recovery Plan, and 12 month Mary River Cod Recovery Team implementation plans. • Ensure research and management activities are consistent with the Recovery Plan objectives and are coordinated. • Provide scientific advice to production of Mary River Cod at the Lake Macdonald Hatchery and any subsequent stocking programs. • Prioritise the research projects. • Ongoing liaison with the Mary River Cod Recovery Team and the Lake Macdonald Hatchery Steering Committee. • Coordinate with research/monitoring activities being undertaken by other agencies/research organisations such as DEEDI and DERM. • Ensure research and monitoring undertaken at the FSCC is consistent in methodology etc. with past studies.. Support the role of the Lake ƒ FSCC to undertake research related to inform production MacDonald Hatchery techniques. Undertake strategic research ƒ Assess genetic structure and diversity of wild, stocked and captive related to genetics, phylogeny and populations physiology Education and awareness

Develop the Environment ƒ Establish displays and interactive areas. Education Centre (EEC) ƒ Develop an education program for the EEC in collaboration with the University of the Sunshine Coast and Queensland Museum. Develop links with key natural ƒ Community involvement and capacity building. resource management and ƒ Ongoing liaison with the Mary River Cod Recovery Team and the conservation groups with the aim of Lake Macdonald Hatchery Steering Committee. including programs of the FSCC and EEC in the Regional Natural ƒ Ensure that any interpretive and extension activities undertaken at Resource Management Plans the Lake Macdonald hatchery or the FSCC are properly coordinated and that the messages are consistent with the Recovery Plan objectives.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Overview of FSCC Page 7-3

Outcome Activity

Enhance educational outcomes ƒ Establish a post-graduate research grants scheme via links to educational institutions and research bodies. ƒ Establish a “visiting researcher” scheme to stimulate and support national and international research links. ƒ Research outputs to be published in peer reviewed scientific journals and presented at conferences in a timely fashion, Status evaluation

Determine and monitor the status ƒ Refine field sampling techniques to optimise their effectiveness for of Mary River Cod populations all size classes of Mary River Cod. throughout their range ƒ Undertake surveys of the Mary River to determine the current status of Mary River Cod populations and identify long-term monitoring sites and commence a monitoring program. ƒ Monitor the status and behaviour of Mary River Cod downstream of the Project, within the impounded area and upstream to evaluate the effectiveness of the fishway.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Overview of FSCC Page 7-4

7.2 Queensland Lungfish Outcome Activity

Research and Management

Determine Lungfish movement ƒ Research into barriers to fish movement requirements and design the most ƒ Investigation on the movement of Lungfish over dam and weir effective transfer devices spillways, including potential impacts ƒ Investigation into marine stranding ƒ Work with DEEDI on fish barrier assessments and rehabilitation of weirs in major tributaries upstream of the dam (Yabba Creek and Kandanga Creek) Establish routine procedures for ƒ Develop guidelines for any conservation stocking program breeding and rearing each species ƒ Conservation stocking ƒ Investigate the effectiveness of artificial breeding habitat for the Lungfish Determine the key habitat ƒ Research into sedimentation and turbidity, and its effects on river requirements for the species productivity and thereby reduction of macrophyte growth which is important habitat for breeding and juvenile Lungfish ƒ Investigation of decreased habitat for shelter (as a result of agricultural or infrastructure encroachment) and whether it could lead to increased predation of exposed juveniles and displacement of individuals to areas that do contain suitable habitat or food resources ƒ Research into damage to breeding habitat and eggs from livestock access to shallow river margins ƒ Research impacts of overcrowding of Lungfish ƒ Research into specialised breeding habitat requirements, and the impact of loss of habitat ƒ Research impact from construction and operation of water storage infrastructure, on volume, frequency, duration and timing of riverine flows, and effect on Lungfish Develop methodology that ƒ Undertake a population study to determine whether population is maximises the potential for breeding breeding in or near water storages Population Dynamics and Genetics ƒ Develop a sound model of population dynamics and recruitment including development of a non-intrusive ageing technique ƒ Undertake strategic research related to genetics, phylogeny and physiology Understanding the impact of ƒ Impacts of stocked native fish, translocated native fish species, introduced aquatic species and introduced pest fish on Lungfish ƒ Impacts of noxious submerged and floating aquatic weeds ƒ Investigation into diseases and susceptibility Understanding the impact of fishing ƒ Research into extent of traditional fishing for Lungfish and impact activities ƒ Research into impact of recreational fishing

Traveston Crossing Dam – Overview of FSCC Page 7-5

Outcome Activity

Understanding the impact of water ƒ Research into tolerance of salinity quality ƒ Research into impact of algal blooms such as blue-green algae on the Lungfish ƒ Investigation into impact of other water quality parameters such as dissolved oxygen, temperature and pH, especially on developing eggs Implementation of in-stream habitat ƒ Support HRP actions with appropriate monitoring and research (HRP)

Understanding of other impacts ƒ Investigation into potential for run-off containing chemicals such as fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides entering Lungfish habitat, and the impact on the Lungfish ƒ Investigation into prevalence and impact of boat strikes Education and awareness

Community education program ƒ Community education campaigns will be conducted that outline the risks of introducing non-native or non-endemic fish to the dam. ƒ Develop links with key natural resource management and conservation groups with the aim of including programs of the FSCC and EEC in the Regional Natural Resource Management Plans Enhance educational outcomes ƒ Establish a post-graduate research grants scheme via links to educational institutions and research bodies. ƒ Establish a “visiting researcher” scheme to stimulate and support national and international research links. ƒ Research outputs to be published in peer reviewed scientific journals and presented at conferences in a timely fashion. Status evaluation

Determine and monitor the status ƒ Monitor the status and behaviour of Lungfish downstream of the of Lungfish Project, within the impounded area and upstream to evaluate the effectiveness of the fishway.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Overview of FSCC Page 7-6

7.3 Mary River Turtle Outcome Activity

Research and Management

Determine Turtle movement ƒ Research into location of the facility and the detail of Turtle bypass requirements and design the most design effective transfer devices ƒ Research into design of spillway with the aim to establish means to retrofit improved structures on existing dams and weirs ƒ Research into utilisation of turtle bypass by the Mary River Turtle Establish routine procedures for ƒ Develop a Headstart program to increase hatchling survival and breeding and rearing each species allow recruitment into the population, including moving clutches to safe incubation sites, creating new sandbanks for nesting, re- planting macrophytes after flood scouring, and introducing snags to pools ƒ Develop an incubation program to protect eggs from predators and illegal collectors Determine the key habitat ƒ Identification of nesting sites and the range of the species requirements for the species throughout the Mary River catchment, through support of Tiaro and District Landcare activities ƒ Predator control in nesting areas ƒ Research into juvenile diet (EES and Flakus study results) ƒ Identification and protection of critical habitat, and involvement of sand mining lease holders in habitat protection. Implementation of in-stream habitat ƒ Support HRP actions with appropriate monitoring and research (HRP) Develop methodology that ƒ Investigate what sort of impoundment facilities are appropriate to maximises the potential for allow breeding breeding in or near water storages Develop a sound model of ƒ Determine population dynamics, demography (maturity, growth, population dynamics and survival and reproductive cycle), and nesting success recruitment including development ƒ Undertake strategic research related to genetics, phylogeny and of a non-intrusive ageing technique physiology Understand other issues impacting ƒ Research into predator control in nesting areas on the Turtles Education and awareness

Public awareness program ƒ Develop a state-of-the-art information and display centre on site, linked to a tour of the facility ƒ Develop links with key natural resource management and conservation groups with the aim of including programs of the centre in the Regional Natural Resource Management Plans ƒ Establish a post-graduate research grants scheme via links to educational institutions and research bodies ƒ Establish a “visiting researcher” scheme to stimulate and support national and international research links ƒ Research outputs to be published in peer reviewed scientific journals and presented at conferences in a timely fashion

Traveston Crossing Dam – Overview of FSCC Page 7-7

Outcome Activity

Status evaluation

Determine and monitor the status Support existing monitoring programs and implementation of HRP of Mary River Turtle populations monitoring actions. throughout their range

Traveston Crossing Dam – Overview of FSCC Page 7-8

7.4 Giant Barred Frog Outcome Activity

Research and Management

Determine Frog movement ƒ Identify spatial movement of Frogs through radio-tracking frogs to requirements and design the most detect movement along corridors and across the landscape and to effective transfer devices see how individuals survive and respond to inundation Establish routine procedures for ƒ Research on the captive husbandry of the Frog will be investigated breeding and rearing each species ƒ Develop captive husbandry skills for the Frog. Where possible, captive Frogs may be used in research (predominantly observational studies) to minimise disturbance and handling of Frogs in their wild habitat (only to be applied for reintroduction as a last measure) Determine the key habitat ƒ Improve knowledge on the current distribution of the Frogs requirements for the species throughout the Project area through undertaking a detailed frog survey (tadpoles and adults) of primary streams affected ƒ Identify macro- and micro-habitat preferences of the Frogs including breeding, non-breeding and juvenile habitat use) through survey of known sites Implementation of habitat ƒ Support HRP actions with appropriate monitoring and research restoration measures (HRP) Undertake strategic research ƒ Genetic analyses of isolated populations (both inside and outside related to Population dynamics, the Project area) to identify genetic mixing at the stream and genetics, phylogeny and catchment levels and to determine metapopulation genetics physiology ƒ Develop a sound model of population dynamics and recruitment including development of a non-intrusive ageing technique Understand other issues impacting ƒ Investigate amphibian chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium on the Frog dendrobatidis) distribution and prevalence throughout the Mary River region. ƒ Investigate larval ecology to see how tadpole period and predatory fish density influence the distribution of the Frog. ƒ Evaluate impacts of invasive species removal techniques on the Frog. ƒ Investigate Impact of pesticides on frog species. ƒ Identify weed control measures for new and existing weed infestations. ƒ Priority research actions include determining the distribution and prevalence of chytridiomycosis throughout the Mary River region Education and awareness

Enhance educational outcomes ƒ Develop the EEC ƒ Develop links with key natural resource management and conservation groups with the aim of including programs of the FSCC and EEC in the Regional Natural Resource Management Plans ƒ Establish a post-graduate research grants scheme via links to educational institutions and research bodies ƒ Establish a “visiting researcher” scheme to stimulate and support national and international research links ƒ Research outputs to be published in peer reviewed scientific journals and presented at conferences in a timely fashion

Traveston Crossing Dam – Overview of FSCC Page 7-9

Outcome Activity

Status evaluation

Determine and monitor the status ƒ Improve knowledge on the current distribution of the Frog of Frog populations throughout the Project area through undertaking a detailed Frog survey (tadpoles and adults) of primary streams affected ƒ Determine baseline population status and dynamics both inside and upstream of the Project area ƒ Long-term monitoring of the Frog populations pre-, during and post-construction within and outside the Project area, and at protected, rehabilitated and translocation sites to monitor population dynamics ƒ Genetic analysis and testing for chytrid fungus will also be undertaken

Traveston Crossing Dam – Overview of FSCC Page 7-10

8. LOCATION AND DESIGN

The FSCC will be located on the shores of the lake formed by the Project and will be easily accessed from the realigned Bruce Highway.

The location of the FSCC was selected following consultation with scientific advisers and the UQ User Group. Since this time, geotechnical investigations have confirmed the suitability of the location, including for the buildings and a carpark.

Based on input from the UQ User Group and Scientific Advisers, it has been established that the facilities will include:

• A significant building including laboratories, multiple offices for resident and visiting scientific staff, interpretive display area and administrative support areas; • Outdoor breeding and experimental ponds (both in-ground and above-ground), constant temperature rooms and aquarium/grow-out facilities with necessary water supply and filtration systems; • Equipment storage sheds and boat ramp; • Necessary field, laboratory and computing equipment including electrofishing boats, 4WD vehicles and fish transport tanks; and • The EEC incorporating a public display and interactive areas.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Overview of FSCC Page 8-1

The facility will not duplicate the scientific equipment that is currently available at UQ or at other institutions. Limited on-site accommodation will be provided, and most staff and visiting researchers will live in the regional community or use local accommodation facilities. Short-term basic accommodation will be provided at the FSCC for researchers who need to conduct overnight observations and field work.

Original sketches and a functional design brief were prepared in late 2007 by GHD. In early 2008, dm2 Architecture were appointed as the architect for the FSCC project following a competitive procurement process.

Following detailed consultation with Scientific Advisers and the UQ User Group and a site visit, a concept design and preliminary plans were presented to the advisers and users. The preliminary architectural plans are continuing to be developed.

Figure 8-1 – Preliminary design

Traveston Crossing Dam – Overview of FSCC Page 8-2

Figure 8-2 and Figure 8-3 – Examples of the Concept Designs

A construction manager has now been appointed to manage construction of the facility upon Project approval. A constructability assessment is being prepared, and bulk earthworks and parking are being designed by civil engineers. Final planning will include structural engineering, mechanical and electrical designs, and detailed designs suitable for construction.

As previously discussed, QWI propose to use the Garapine facility as an interim measure to enable the commencement of the FSCC immediately upon project approval. The facility is located on site, and has suitable accommodation and associated facilities (such as communication connections and kitchen facilities) to allow field research to commence.

Traveston Crossing Dam – Overview of FSCC Page 8-3

Letters of Endorsement Letters of Endorsement Appendix F

Graeme Newton 5 June 2009 The Chief Executive Officer Queensland Water Infrastructure Pty Ltd Level 8, 119 Charlotte Street Brisbane QLD 4000

Dear Graeme,

Thank you for inviting me to act as a Scientif ic Advisor for QWI’s response to the DEWHA reports, my advice is specifically related to the Giant Barred River Frog.

My counsel for the preparation of QW I’s response to the DEWHA has focussed on applying sound knowledge on the biology of the Giant Barred Frog, and scientific rigour, to the management process. My objective has been to minimize the impacts, and optimize the long-term sustainable benefits for the Giant Ba rred Frog in the Mary River catchment, if the proposed Traverston Dam proceeds.

The Giant Barred Frog is currently restricted to isolated patches of riparian vegetation along the Mary River and its tributaries. These isolated populations are currently at risk of localised extinction due to continuing anthropogenic disturbance (grazing and habitat clearing). The proposed Traverston Dam will inundate some of these fragmented populations, however strict environmental management during and after construction can provide compensatory habitat in adjacent streams that will allow for the establishment of continuous habitat, and hence viable populations of Giant Barred Frogs in the future.

If the mitigation measures, habitat restoration objectives, and frog research outcomes are achieved as a requirement of the Traverston Dam proposal, I am confident the long-term viability of Giant Barred Frog populations in the Mary River catchment will be enhanced.

Sincerely,

Dr Jean-Marc Hero Associate Professor - Vertebrate Ecology Deputy Director, Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies School of Environment, Griffith University

Curriculum Vitae Curriculum Vitae Appendix G EMERITUS PROFESSOR GORDON GRIGG

Qualifications

1987 D.Sc. The University of Sydney.

1968 Ph.D. (Biology), University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA.

1965 First Class Honours in Zoology, University of Queensland.

1963 B.Sc. (Zoology), University of Queensland.

Awards

2003 Honorary Doctorate, The University of Goteborg, Sweden

1994 Clarke Medal for Zoology (Royal Society of New South Wales)

1979 Elected Fellow of the Royal Zoological Society of NSW

1971 Laura Bushell Trust Award

1968 Queen Elizabeth II Post-doctoral Fellowship

1965 Australian-American (Fulbright) Foundation Travel Grant

1962 Queensland Freemason's Scholarship

1962 H.C. Richards Memorial Medal for Geology

Profile

Gordon Grigg is Emeritus Professor of Zoology at the University of Queensland. He has over 35 years professional experience as a researcher and lecturer on both a national and international scale and has authored, co-authored and edited over 170 scientific publications, including several books and more than 30 semi-popular articles.

Professor Grigg has been researching the Queensland Lungfish since the early 1960s, and has produced more than 10 publications on the biology and physiology of the species. He was a member of the Commonwealth Department of Environment’s Threatened Species Scientific Committee and was involved in the listing of the Queensland Lungfish as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act. Gordon was recently appointed to the Commonwealth DEWHA’s ‘Working Group for the ecology of Christmas Island’. Until retirement, Gordon taught a wide range of course topics including vertebrae zoology, animal physiology and physiological ecology. During this period he supervised more than 50 honours students and over 20 PhD students.

Gordon has primary research interests in whole animal vertebrate biology, at the interface between physiology and ecology, with particular interests in the physiological adaptations of animals to their environment. Additionally, since 1975 involvement with aerial survey of kangaroos has led to parallel interests in wildlife ecology. Gordon has a strong emphasis on field work, because of the need to study animals where they live as well as in the laboratory.

Gordon’s long term interests are in the biology of Queensland Lungfish, echidnas, crocodiles and kangaroos.

Gordon is considered one of Australia’s pre-eminent zoologists and field biologists and is highly respected for his views on the Queensland Lungfish.

Employment

1989 – 2007 University of Queensland, Professor of Zoology

1989-1998 University of Queensland, Head of Department of Zoology

Jan 1982-1988 University of Sydney, Associate Professor of Biology (Head of School, 1984)

Jan 1973-Dec 1981 University of Sydney, Senior Lecturer in Biology

July 1970-Dec 1972 University of Sydney, Lecturer in Biology

July 1968-Jun 1970 University of Sydney, Queen Elizabeth II Fellow

Jan 1966-Jun 1968 University of Oregon, Research Assistant

Sep 1965-Dec 1965 University of Oregon, Teaching Fellow

Jan 1965-Aug 1965 University of Queensland, Demonstrator

Jan 1963-Dec 1964 University of Queensland, Teaching Fellow

Appointments

February 2009 Apponted Member Expert Working Group

Looking into ecology of Christmas island, particularly the status of the Christmas Island Pipistrelle.

October 2008 Appointed Chair, Queensland EPA’s Crocodile Egg Ranching Expert Panel 1996-present Member, IUCN Australasian Sustainable Use Network

1995 Appointed Chair, Queensland’s Crocodile Management Advisory Committee

1984-present Member, Crocodile Specialist Group, within the Species Survival Service of I.U.C.N..

2000-2007 Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC)

1996-2001 Member, Scientific Committee on Wildlife Use (SCWU)

1989-1999 Member, Queensland Macropod Management Committee

1990-1995. Member, Scientific Advisory Committee for Kangaroos

1984-1990 Member, Minister for Home Affairs and Environment's National Advisory Committee on Kangaroos. Appointed

1980s and 1990s Member of three separate Cane Toad Research Advisory Committees

1986-1989 Chair, Editorial Advisory Committee, "Australian Wildlife Research"

1985 Visiting Professor, University of Florida (November-December,)

1974-1979 Royal Zoological Society of N.S.W

Australian Society of Herpetologists (two terms as President)

Current Research

Monitoring the impact of cane toads on native frogs in the area into which cane toads are now expanding, using novel acoustic monitoring techniques which depend on automated sound recognition. This has led to a CERF-funded project to expand the capabilities of the system to provide autonomous 24/7/365 bioacoustic monitoring of birds, bats, and acoustic insects as well as frogs, with interactive data review and retrieval via the internet.

Writing a book on crocodilians; working title “How crocodiles work”.

Until retirement, taught a wide range of undergraduate courses, including vertebrate zoology, animal physiology, human physiology, physiological ecology, and wildlife utilisation and management.

Supervision completed for more than 50 honours students, six M.Sc students and more than 20 Ph.D. students. Publications

1 Grigg GC 1965 Spawning behaviour in the Queensland lungfish, Neoceratodus forsteri (Krefft). Aust Nat Hist 30:50.

2 Grigg GC 1965 Studies on the Queensland Lungfish, Neoceratodus forsteri (Krefft) I. Anatomy, histology and functioning of the lung. Aust J Zool 13:243-53.

3 Grigg GC 1965 Studies on the Queensland Lungfish, Neoceratodus forsteri (Krefft) II. Thermal acclimation. Aust J Zool 13:407-11.

4 Grigg GC 1965 Studies on the Queensland Lungfish, Neoceratodus forsteri (Krefft) III. Aerial respiration in relation to habits. Aust J Zool 13:413-21.

5 Johansen K, C Lenfant and GC Grigg 1966 Respiratory properties of blood and responses to diving in the Platypus, Ornithorhynchus anatinus (Shaw). Comp Biochem Physiol 18:597-608.

6 Lenfant C, K Johansen and GC Grigg 1966 Respiratory properties of blood and pattern of gas exchange in the Queensland Lungfish, Neoceratodus forsteri (Krefft). Resp Physiol 2:1-21.

7 Johansen K, C Lenfant and GC Grigg 1967 Respiratory control in the lungfish, Neoceratodus forsteri (Krefft). Comp Biochem Physiol 20:835-54.

8 Grigg GC 1967 Respiratory properties of the blood of four species of Antarctic fishes. Comp Biochem Physiol 23:139-48.

9 Grigg GC 1969 Temperature-induced changes in the oxygen equilibrium curve of the blood of the brown bullhead, Ictalurus nebulosus. Comp Biochem Physiol 28:1203-23.

10 Grigg GC 1969 The failure of oxygen transport in a fish at low levels of ambient oxygen. Comp Biochem Physiol 29:1253-57.

11 Hemmingsen EA, EL Douglas and GC Grigg 1969 Oxygen consumption in an Antarctic hemoglobin-free fish, Pagetopsis macropteris and in three species of Notothenia. Comp Biochem Physiol 29:467-70.

12 Grigg GC and J Read 1970 Gill function in an Elasmobranch. Z Vergl Physiol 29:439-51.

13 Grigg GC 1970 Water flow through the gills of Port Jackson sharks. J Exp Biol 52:565-68.

14 Grigg GC 1970 Use of the first gill slits for water intake in a shark. J Exp Biol 52:569-75. 15 Grigg GC and JR Simons 1972 Preferential distribution of left and right auricular blood into the arterial arches of the Tuatara, Sphenodon punctatus. J Zool Lond 167:481-6.

16 Grigg GC 1973 Some consequences of the shape and orientation of "magnetic" termite mounds. Aust J Zool 21:231-37.

17 Grigg GC 1974 Respiratory properties of the blood of fish. In "Chemical Zoology Vol VIII, Deuterostomians, Cyclostomes and Fishes" pp 331-68. (Eds. Florkin and Scheer. Academic Press).

18 Pepperell J and GC Grigg 1974 A labyrinthodont trackway from the mid-Triassic near Sydney, New South Wales. Proc Linn Soc NSW 99:54-6.

19 Courtice GP and GC Grigg 1975 A taxonomic revision of the Litoria aurea complex (Anura, Hylidae) in south-eastern Australia. Aust Zool 18:149-163.

20 Grigg GC and J Alchin 1976 The role of the cardiovascular system in thermoregulation of Crocodylus johnstoni. Physiol Zool 49:24-36.

21 Grigg GC 1977 The body temperature of dinosaurs and crocodiles. In "Australian animals and their environment". (Eds. H Messel and ST Butler. Shakespeare Head Press, Sydney).

22 Grigg GC 1977 Ionic and osmotic regulation in the Estuarine Crocodile Crocodylus porosus. In "Australian animals and their environment". (Eds. H Messel and ST Butler. Shakespeare Head Press, Sydney.

23 Grigg GC and AJ Underwood 1977 An analysis of the orientation of "magnetic" termite mounds. Aust J Zool 25:87-94.

24 Barker J and GC Grigg 1977 "A Field Guide to Australian Frogs". (Rigby Ltd. Adelaide, 229pp).

25 Magnusson W, GJ Caughley and GC Grigg 1978 A double-survey estimate of population size from incomplete counts. J Wildl Manag 42:174-6.

26 Grigg GC 1978 Metabolic rate, RQ and Q10 in Crocodylus porosus and some generalisations about low RQ in reptiles. Physiol Zool 51:354-60.

27 Magnusson W, GC Grigg and JA Taylor 1978 An aerial survey of potential nesting areas of the Saltwater Crocodile (Crocodylus porosus Schneider) on the north coast of Arnhem Land, northern Australia. Aust Wildl Res 5:401-15.

28 Grigg GC and M Gruca 1979 Possible adaptive significance of low red cell organic phosphates in crocodiles. J Exp Zool 209:161-7. 29 Grigg GC, CR Drane and GP Courtice 1979 Time constants of heating and cooling in the Eastern Water Dragon Physignathus lesueurii and some generalisations about heating and cooling in reptiles. J Therm Biol 4:95-103.

30 Grigg GC 1979 Aeronautical aspects of aerial survey. In "Aerial surveys of fauna populations". (Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service Special Publication No. 1).

31 Caughley GJ, RG Sinclair and GC Grigg 1979 Trend of kangaroo populations in N S W Australia. J Wildl Manag 43:775-7.

32 Caughley GJ, GC Grigg, JA Caughley and GKE Hill 1980 Does dingo predation control the densities of kangaroos and emus? Aust Wildl Res 7:1-12.

33 Magnusson W, GC Grigg and JA Taylor 1980 An aerial survey of potential nesting areas of Crocodylus porosus on the west coast of Cape York Peninsula. Aust Wildl Res 7:465-78.

34 Marshall E and GC Grigg 1980 Lack of metabolic acclimation to different thermal histories by tadpoles of Limnodynastes peroni (Anura, Leptodactylidae). Physiol Zool 52:1-7.

35 van Beurden EK and GC Grigg 1980 An isolated and expanding population of the introduced toad Bufo marinus in New South Wales. Aust Wildl Res 7:305-10.

36 Grigg GC and M Cairncross 1980 Respiratory properties of the blood of Crocodylus porosus. Resp Physiol 41:367-80.

37 Grigg GC, LE Taplin, P Harlow and J Wright 1980 Survival and growth of hatchling Crocodylus porosus in salt water without access to fresh drinking water. Oecologia 47:264-6.

38 Gruca M and GC Grigg 1980 Methemoglobin reduction in crocodile blood: are high levels of MetHb typical of healthy reptiles? J Exp Zool 213:305-8.

39 Marshall E and GC Grigg 1980 Acclimation of CTM, LD50 and rapid loss of acclimation of thermal preferendum in tadpoles of Limnodynastes peroni (Anura, Myobatrachidae). Aust Zool 20(3):447-55.

40 Grigg GC 1981 Plasma homeostasis and cloacal urine composition in Crocodylus porosus caught along a salinity gradient. J Comp Physiol 144:261-70.

41 Grigg GC and P Harlow 1981 A fetal-maternal shift of blood oxygen affinity in an Australian viviparous lizard Sphenomorphus quoyii (Reptilia, Scincidae). J Comp Physiol B 142:495-99.

42 Caughley GJ and GC Grigg 1981 Surveys of the distribution and density of kangaroos in the Pastoral Zone of South Australia, and their bearing on the feasibility of aerial survey in large and remote areas. Aust Wildl Res 8:1-11. 43 Shine R, GC Grigg, TG Shine and P Harlow 1981 Mating and male combat in Australian blacksnakes, Pseudechis porphyriacus (Serpentes, Elapidae). J Herpetol 15(1):101-7.

44 Taplin LE and GC Grigg 1981 Salt glands in the tongue of the Estuarine Crocodile. Science 212:1045-7.

45 Taplin LE, GC Grigg, P Harlow, TM Ellis and WA Dunson 1982 Lingual salt glands in Crocodylus acutus and C. johnstoni and their absence from Alligator mississipensis and Caiman crocodilus. J Comp Physiol 149:43-7.

46 Caughley GJ and GC Grigg 1982 Numbers and distribution of kangaroos in the Queensland pastoral zone. Aust Wildl Res 9:365-71.

47 Short J and GC Grigg 1982 The abundance of kangaroos in suboptimal habitats wheat, intensive pastoral, mallee. Aust Wildl Res 9:221-227.

48 Gallagher KJ, DA Morrison, R Shine and GC Grigg 1983 Validation and use of 22Na turnover to measure food intake in free-ranging lizards. Oecologia 60:76-82.

49 Caughley GJ, J Short and GC Grigg 1983 How many kangaroos? Search 14:151- 152.

50 Fraser S and GC Grigg 1984 Control of thermal conductance is not significant to thermoregulation in most reptiles. Physiol Zool 57(4):392-400.

51 Grigg GC 1984 Are kangaroos really under threat? Aust Nat Hist 21(4):123-129.

52 Harlow P and GC Grigg 1984 Shivering thermogenesis in the brooding Diamond Python, Python spilotes spilotes. Copeia 1984:959-965.

53 Caughley GJ, GC Grigg and LA Smith 1985 The effect of drought on kangaroo populations. J Wildl Manag 49(3):679-685.

54 Grigg GC, R Shine and H Ehmann 1985 "Biology of Australasian Frogs and Reptiles" 527pp. (Surrey Beatty & Sons, Sydney).

55 Taplin LE, GC Grigg and LA Beard 1985 Salt gland function in fresh water crocodiles: evidence for a marine phase in eusuchian evolution? In "Biology of Australasian Frogs and Reptiles" (Eds. Grigg GC, R Shine and H Ehmann). pp403- 410. (Surrey Beatty & Sons, Sydney).

56 Grigg GC and LA Beard 1985 Water loss and gain in eggs of Crocodylus porosus, related to incubation age and fertility. In "Biology of Australasian Frogs and Reptiles" (Eds. Grigg GC, R. Shine and H Ehmann). pp353-359. (Surrey Beatty & Sons, Sydney). 57 Grigg GC, W Farwell, J Kinney, P Harlow, LE Taplin, K Johansen and K Johansen 1985 Diving and amphibious behaviour in free-living Crocodylus porosus. Aust Zool 21:(7)599-605.

58 Liggins GW and GC Grigg 1985 Osmoregulation of the Cane Toad, Bufo marinus, in salt water. Comp Biochem Physiol 82A:613-619.

59 Archer M, TF Flannery and GC Grigg 1985 "The Kangaroo" (Kevin Weldon, Sydney).

60 Grigg GC, LA Beard, G Caughley, D Grice, JA Caughley, N Shepherd, M Fletcher and C Southwell 1985 The Australian kangaroo populations, 1984. Search 16:277- 279.

61 Grigg GC, K Johansen, P Harlow, LA Beard and LE Taplin 1986 Facultative aestivation in a tropical fresh water turtle, Chelodina rugosa. Comp Biochem Physiol 83A:321-323.

62 Grigg GC, LE Taplin, B Green and P Harlow 1986 Sodium and water fluxes in free- living Crocodylus porosus in marine and brackish conditions. Physiol Zool 59(2):240-253.

63 Bennett JM, LE Taplin and GC Grigg 1986 Sea water drinking as a homeostatic response to dehydration in hatchling Loggerhead Turtles, Caretta caretta. Comp Biochem Physiol 83A(3):507-513.

64 Grigg GC 1987 Water relations of crocodilian eggs: management considerations. In "Wildlife Management, Crocodiles and Alligators". (Eds. GJW Webb, SC Manolis and PLJ Whitehead). (Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney).

65 Grigg GC and K Johansen 1987 Cardiovascular dynamics in Crocodylus porosus breathing air and during voluntary dives. J Comp Physiol B 157(3):381-392.

66 Caughley GJ, Short J, Grigg GC and H Nix 1987 Kangaroos and climate: An analysis of distribution. J Anim Ecol 56:751-761.

67 Burley RW, Jack JF, Wellington JE and GC Grigg 1987 Proteins of the albumen and vitelline membrane of eggs of the Estuarine Crocodile, Crocodylus porosus. Comp Biochem Physiol 88B(3):863-867.

68 Grigg GC and RMG Wells 1988 A simple and inexpensive tonometry system for use with microlitre blood samples. Comp Biochem Physiol 89A:593-594.

69 Grigg GC, Jacklyn P and LE Taplin 1988 The effects of buried magnets on colonies of "magnetic" termites in the field. Physiol Entomol 13(3):285-290.

70 Wells RMG, Summers G, Beard LA and GC Grigg 1988 Ecological and behavioural correlates of intracellular buffering capacity in the muscles of antarctic fishes. Polar Biol 8:321-325. 71 Wells RMG, Grigg GC, Beard LA and G Summers 1989 Adaptations to hypoxia by the Antarctic Nototheniid fish Pagothenia borchgrevinki. J Exp Biol 1412:97-111.

72 Grigg GC, LA Beard and MG Augee 1989 Hibernation in a monotreme, the echidna Tachyglossus aculeatus. Comp Biochem Physiol 92A:609-612.

73 Grigg GC 1989 The heart and patterns of cardiac outflow in Crocodilia. Proc Aust Physiol & Pharm 20(1):43-57.

74 Taplin LE and GC Grigg 1989 Historical zoogeography of the eusuchian crocodilians: A physiological perspective. Amer Zool 29:885-901.

75 Grigg GC 1989 Kangaroo havesting and the conservation of arid and semi-arid rangelands. Conserv Biol 3:194-197.

76 Fletcher M, Southwell CJ, Shepherd NW, Caughley G, Grice D, Grigg GC and LA Beard 1990 Kangaroo population trends in the Australian rangelands, 1980-87. Search 21:28-29.

77 Grigg GC, Jarman PJ and ID Hume 1990 "Kangaroos, Wallabies and Rat Kangaroos". 835pp. (Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney).

78 Calaby JH and GC Grigg 1990 Changes in macropodoid communities and populations in the past 200 years, and the future. In "Kangaroos, Wallabies and Rat Kangaroos" (Eds. Grigg GC, Jarman PJ and ID Hume). (Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney).

79 Wells RMG, Beard LA and GC Grigg 1991 Blood viscosity and hematocrit in the estuarine crocodile, Crocodylus porosus. Comp Biochem Physiol 99A:411-414.

80 Grigg GC 1991 Central cardiovascular anatomy and function in Crocodilia. In "Strategies of Physiological Adaptation". Proceedings of the Kjell Johansen Memorial Symposium, edited by S Wood and R Weber. Munksgard.

81 Pople AR, Cairns SC and GC Grigg 1991 Distribution and abundance of emus (Dromaius novaehollandiae) in relation to the environment in the South Australian Pastoral zone. Emu 91:222-229.

82 Cairns SC, Pople AR and GC Grigg 1991 Distribution and habitat associations of red kangaroos (Macropus rufus) and western grey kangaroos (Macropus fuliginosus) in the pastoral zone of South Australia. Wildl. Res., 18: 377-402.

83 Wright JC, Grigg GC and CE Franklin 1992 Redistribution of air within the lungs may potentiate "fright" bradycardia in submerged crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus). Comp Biochem Physiol B., 102A, 1: 33-36.

84 Augee ML, Beard LA and GC Grigg 1992 Home range of echidnas in the Snowy Mountains. "Platypus and Echidnas". Ed. ML Augee. Roy. Zool. Soc. NSW, 225- 231. 85 Grant TR, Beard LA and GC Grigg 1992 Movement and home range of platypus in the Thredbo River, NSW. "Platypus and Echidnas". Ed. ML Augee. Roy. Zool. Soc. NSW., 263-267.

86 Grigg GC, Augee ML and LA Beard 1992 Thermal relations of free-living echidnas during activity and in hibernation in a cold climate. "Platypus and Echidnas". Ed. ML Augee. Roy. Zool. Soc. NSW 160-173.

87 Beard LA, Grigg GC and ML Augee 1992 Reproduction by echidnas in a cold climate. "Platypus and Echidnas". Ed. ML Augee. Roy. Zool. Soc. NSW. 93-100

88 Grigg GC, Beard LA, Grant TR and ML Augee 1992 Body temperature and diurnal activity patterns in the platypus, Ornithorhynchus anatinus, during winter. Aust J Zool. 40: 135-42.

89 Taplin LE, Grigg GC and LA Beard 1993 Osmoregulation of the Australian Freshwater Crocodile, Crocodylus johnstoni, in fresh and saline waters. J Comp Physiol B 163 1: 70-77.

90 Grigg GC, Wells RMG and LA Beard 1993 Allosteric control of oxygen binding by haemoglobin during embryonic development in the crocodile, Crocodylus porosus: the role of red cell organic phosphates and carbon dioxide. J Exp Biol 175: 15-32.

91 Cairns SC and GC Grigg 1993 Population dynamics of red kangaroos (Macropus rufus) in relation to rainfall in the pastoral zone of South Australia. J Appl Ecol 30: 444-458.

92 Franklin CE and GC Grigg 1993 Increased vascularity of the lingual salt glands of the Estuarine Crocodile, Crocodylus porosus kept in hyperosmotic salinity. J Morph 218:143-151.

93 Davie PS, Franklin, CE and GC Grigg 1993 Blood pressure and heart rate during tonic immobility in the black tipped reef shark. Carcharhinus melanoptera. Fish Physiol Bioch 12(2):95-100.

94 Fritsche R, Axelsson M, Franklin CE, Grigg GC, Holmgren S and S Nilsson 1993 Respiratory and cardiovascular responses to hypoxia in the Australian lungfish. Resp Physiol 94:173-187.

95 Grigg, GC and C Gans 1993 Crocodilia: Morphology & Physiology. In "Fauna of Australia" Volume 2A. Amphibia and Reptilia. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

96 Holmgren S, Fritsche R, Karila P, Gibbins I, Axelsson M, Franklin C, Grigg GC and S Nilsson 1994 Neuropeptides in the Australian lungfish, Neoceratodus fosteri: effects in vivo and presence in autonomic nerves. Am J Physiol 266 (Regulatory Integrative Comp. Physiol. 35): R1568-R1577. 97 Frappell PB, Franklin CE and GC Grigg 1994 Ventilatory and metabolic responses to hypoxia in the echidna, Tachyglossus aculeatus. Am J Physiol - Regulatory and Comparative Physiology 36(6):R1510-1515.

98 Amey AP and GC Grigg 1995 Lipid-reduced evaporative water loss in two arboreal hylid frogs. Comp Biochem Physiol 111 A:283-291.

99 Parkinson AL, Whittington AT, Spencer PBS, Grigg GC, Hinds L, Gallagher C, Kuchel P and NS Agar 1995 Comparative erythrocyte metabolism in marsupials and monotremes. Comp Biochem Physiol. 110C:261-265.

100 Whittington AL, Parkinson AL, Spencer PBS, Grigg GC, Hinds L, Gallagher C, Kuchel P and NS Agar 1995 Comparative study of the antioxidant defence systems in the erythrocytes of Australian marsupials and monotremes. Comp Biochem Physiol. 110C:267-272.

101 Karila P, Axelsson M, Franklin CE, Fritsche R, Gibbins IL, Grigg GC, Nilsson S and S Holmgren 1995 Neuropeptide immunoreactivity and co-existence in cardiovascular nerves and autonomic ganglia of the estuarine crocodile, Crocodylus porosus, and cardivascular effects of neuropeptides. Regulatory Peptides 58:25-39.

102 Taylor GC, Franklin CE and GC Grigg 1995 Salt loading stimulates secretion by the lingual salt glands in Crocodylus porosus. J Exp Zool 272:490-495.

103 Barker J, Grigg GC and MJ Tyler 1995 "A Field Guide to Australian Frogs". 407pp. Surrey Beatty and Sons. Sydney.

104 GC Grigg, PT Hale and D Lunney 1995 "Conservation through the sustainable use of wildlife" 362pp. Centre for Conservation Biology. The University of Queensland.

105 Grigg GC 1995 Kangaroo harvesting for conservation of rangelands, kangaroos and graziers. pp.161-165 In "Conservation through the sustainable use of wildlife" Eds. GC Grigg, D Lunney and PT Hale. Centre for Conservation Biology, The University of Queensland.

106 Grigg GC, Pople AR and LA Beard 1995 Movements of feral camels in central Australia determined by satellite telemetry. J Arid Env 31:459-469.

107 Grigg GC 1996 Harvesting kangaroos in Australia. In "Assessing the Sustainability of Uses of Wild Species: Case Studies and Initial Assessment Procedures" Eds. R and C Prescott-Allen. Pp. 27-29. Occasional paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commision; Number 2. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

108 Pople AR, Grigg GC, Cairns SC, Alexander P, Beard LA, and R Henzell 1996 Trends in the numbers and changes in the distribution of feral goats (Capra hircus) in the South Australian Pastoral Zone. Wildlife Research 23:687-696.

109 Grigg GC and LA Beard 1996 Heart rates and respiratory rates of free-ranging echdinas - evidence for metabolic inhibition during hibernation? In “Adaptations to the Cold: Tenth International Hibernation Symposium”. Eds. Geiser F, Hulbert AJ and SC Nicol, University of New England Press, Armidale.

110 Taylor A, Watson G, Grigg GC and HI McCallum 1996 Monitoring frog communities: an application of machine learning. Proceedings of the 8th Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, Portland, Oregon August 5-7, 1996. The AAAI Press.

111 Axelsson M, Franklin CE, Lofman CO, S Nilsson and GC Grigg 1996 Dynamic anatomical study of cardiac shunting in crocodiles using high resolution angioscopy. J Exp Biol 199(2):359-365.

112 Read MA, GC Grigg and CJ Limpus 1996. Body temperatures and winter feeding in immature green turtles, Chelonia mydas in Moreton Bay, south eastern Queensland. J Herp 30(2):262-265.

113 Jones M, Grigg GC and L Beard 1997 Body temperatures of Tasmanian Devils and Quolls. Physiol Zool 70(1):53-60.

114 Manning B and GC Grigg 1997 Basking behaviour is not of thermoregulatory significance to the 'basking' freshwater turtle Emydura signata. Copeia 1997(3):579- 584.

115 Pidcock S, Taplin LE and GC Grigg 1997 Differences in renal-cloacal function between Crocodylus porosus and Alligator mississippiensis have implications for crocodilian evolution. J Comp Physiol B 167(2):153-158.

116 Axelsson M, Franklin CE, Fritsche R, Grigg G and S Nilsson 1997 The subpulmonary conus and the arterial anastomosis as important sites of cardiovascular regulation in the crocodile, Crocodylus porosus. J Exp Biol 200:804- 814

117 Grigg GC, Pople AR and LA Beard 1997 Application of an ultra-light aircraft to aerial surveys of kangaroos on grazing properties. Wildlife Research 24:359-372.

118 Seebacher F and GC Grigg 1997 Patterns of body temperature in wild freshwater crocodiles, Crocodylus johnstoni: thermoregulation vs. concormity, seasonal acclimatisation and the effect of social interactions. Copeia 1997(3):549-557.

119 Wilkinson DA, GC Grigg and LA Beard 1998 Shelter selection and the home range of echidnas, Tachyglossus aculeatus, in the highlands of south-eastern Queensland. Wildlife Research 25:219-232.

120 Schauble CS and GC Grigg 1998 Thermal ecology of the Australian agamid lizard Pogona barbata. Oecologia 114:461-471.

121 Pople AR, Cairns SC, Clancy TF, Grigg GC, Beard LA and CJ Southwell 1998 An assessment of the accuracy of kangaroo surveys using fixed-wing aircraft. Wildlife Research 25:315-326. 122 Grigg, G.C., L.A. Beard, T. Moulton, M.T. Queirol Melo and LE Taplin 1998 Osmoregulation by the broad-snouted caiman, Caiman latirostris, in estuarine habitat in southern Brazil. J Comp Physiol B 168:445-452.

123 Grigg GC, F Seebacher, LA Beard and D Morris 1998 Thermal relations of large crocodiles, Crocodylus porosus, free-ranging in a naturalistic situation. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 265:1793-1799.

124 Pople AR, SC Cairns, TF Clancy, GC Grigg, LA Beard and CJ Southwell 1998 Comparison of surveys of kangaroos in Queensland using helicopters and fixed- wing aircraft. Rangel. J. 20(1):92-103.

125 Seebacher F, GC Grigg and LA Beard 1999 Crocodiles as dinosaurs: behavioural thermoregulation in very large ectotherms leads to high and stable body temperatures. J Exp Biol 202:77-86.

126 McAlpine CA, GC Grigg, JJ Mott and P Sharma 1999 Influence of landscape structure on kangaroo abundance in a disturbed semi-arid woodland in Queensland. Rangeland Journal 21(1):104-134.

127 Taplin LE, GC Grigg, LA Beard and T Pulsford 1999 Osmoregulatory mechanisms in an unusual estuarine population of the Australian freshwater crocodile, Crocodylus johnstoni. J Comp Physiol B:169:215-233..

128 Christian E and GC Grigg 1999 Electrical activation of the ventricular myocardium of the crocodile Crocodylus johnstoni: a combined microscopic and electrophysiological studt. Comp Biochem Physiol A, Mol Integr Physiol: 123(1):17- 23.

129 Grigg GC 1999 Wildlife research – why is it conducted? Proceedings of ANZCCART Symposium “The Use of Wildlife in Research”. Dubbo, NSW. May 1999.

130 Grigg GC and F Seebacher 1999 Field test of a paradigm: hysteresis of heart rate in thermoregulation by a free-ranging lizard, Pogona barbata. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 266:1-7.

131 Grigg GC, Beard L, Alexander P, Pople AR, & Cairns SC 1999 Aerial survey of kangaroos in South Australia 1978-1998; a brief report focusing on methodology. Aust Zool 31(1):292-300.

132 Grigg GC and AR Pople (1999) Outcomes of the workshop: refining aerial surveys of kangaroos. Aust Zool 31(1):317-320.

133 Pople AR, Grigg GC, Cairns SC, Beard LA and P Alexander 2000 Trends in the numbers of red kangaroos and emus on either side of the South Australian dingo fence: evidence for predator regulation? Wildl. Res. 27:269-276. 134 Cairns SC, GC Grigg, LA Beard, AR Pople and P Alexander 2000 Western grey kangaroos, Macropus fuliginosus, in the South Australian pastoral zone: populations at the edge of their range. Wildl Res 27:309-318.

135 Franklin CE, Seebacher F and GC Grigg 2000 At the crocodilian heart of the matter. Science:289:16-17.

136 Grigg GC and LA Beard 2000 Hibernation by echidnas in mild climates: Hints about the evolution of endothermy? pp. 5-20 in "Life in the Cold". Heldmaier G and M Klingenspor (Eds.) Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

137 Beard LA and GC Grigg 2000 Reproduction in the Short-beaked Echidna, Tachyglossus aculeatus: Field Observations at an Elevated Site in South-east Queensland. Proc Linn Soc NSW 122:89-99.

138 Abdullah MT, Moritz C, Grigg GC and LS Hall (2001) Evidence of cryptic species within Cynopteris brachyotis by using mtDNA sequence. Pp. 403-408. Proceedings of International Conference on in-situ and ex-situ biodiversity conservation in the new millennium. Eds. Yaacob Z, Moo-Tan S and S Yorvath. Saba Museum, Kota Kinabalu.

139 Grigg GC and LA Beard 2001 Application of radiotelemetry to studies of the physiological ecology of vertebrates. Pp 535-551 in JH Eiler, DJ Alcorn and MR Neuman (Eds.) Biotelemetry 15: Proceedings of 15th International Conference on Biotelemetry, Juneau, Alaska, USA. International Society on Biotelemetry. Wageningen, The Netherlands.

140 Beard LA and GC Grigg 2001 Radiotelemetry of echidnas and platypus. Pp 493- 500 in JH Eiler, DJ Alcorn and MR Neuman (Eds.) Biotelemetry 15: Proceedings of 15th International Conference on Biotelemetry, Juneau, Alaska, USA. International Society on Biotelemetry. Wageningen, The Netherlands.

141 Grigg GC and AR Pople 2001 Sustainable use and pest control: kangaroos, a case study. In “Conservation of Exploited Species” (Editors Reynolds JD, G Mace and KH Redford) Cambridge University Press.

142 Grigg GC, Seebacher F and CE Franklin 2001 (Editors) “Crocodilian Biology and Evolution”. 445 pp. Surrey Beatty and Sons.

143 Grigg GC and F Seebacher. 2001 Thermal relations of crocodilians. Pp. 297-309 in “Crocodilian Biology and Evolution”. Grigg GC, Seebacher F and CE Franklin (Editors) Surrey Beatty and Sons.

144 Seebacher F and GC Grigg 2001 Social interactions compromise thermoregulation in crocodiles Crocodylus johnstoni and Crocodylus porosus. Pp. 310-316 in “Crocodilian Biology and Evolution”. Grigg GC, Seebacher F and CE Franklin (Editors) Surrey Beatty and Sons. 145 Macknight FL, Cato DH, Noad MJ and GC Grigg 2001 Qualitative and quantitative analyses of the song of the east Australian population of humpback whales. Mem. Qld. Mus. 47(2):525-537

146 Seebacher F and GC Grigg 2001 Changes in heart rate are important for thermoregulation in the varanid lizard Varanus varius. J Comp Physiol B 171:395- 400

147 Kind PK, Grigg GC and DT Booth 2002 Responses to prolonged hypoxia in the Australian lungfish, Neoceratodus forsteri. Resp Physiol & Neurobiol 132:179-190.

148 Grigg GC 2002 Conservation benefit from harvesting kangaroos: status report at the start of a new millennium. A paper to stimulate discussion and research. pp. 52-76 in “A Zoological Revolution: Using native fauna to assist in its own survival” Eds. D Lunney and CR Dickman

149 Grigg GC 2002 The impact of animals on the environment: Should we be switching to kangaroos and, if so, how could we? A paper to stimulate discussion. McClymont Lecture for 2002. Anim Prod Aust 24:425-434.

150 Brice PH, Grigg GC, Beard LA and JA Donovan 2002 Heat Tolerance of Short-beaked Echidnas (Tachyglossus aculeatus) in the Field. J Thermal Biol 27:449-457.

151 Brice PH, Grigg GC, Beard LA and JA Donovan 2002 Patterns of activity and inactivity in echidnas (Tachyglossus aculeatus) free-ranging in a hot dry climate: correlates with ambient temperature, time of day and season. Aust J Zool 50:461-475

152 Franklin CE, Davis BM, Peuker SJK, Stephenson H, Mayer R, Whittier J, Lever J and GC Grigg (2003) Comparison of stress induced by manual restraint and immobilisation in the estuarine crocodile, Crocodilus porosus. J Exp Zool 298A: 86-92.

153 Grigg GC, Beard LA, Barnes JA, Perry LI, Fry GJ and Hawkins M 2003 Body Temperature in Captive Long-beaked Echidnas (Zaglossus bartoni) Comp Biochem Physiol A 136:911-916.

154 Zahler P, Olsen K, Ganzorig Khuukhenbaatar, Boldbaatar Byamba, Schaller G, Grigg GC, Pople AR, Payne N, Draisma M, Hopwood P and Daria Odonkhuu. 2003 Management of Mongolian Gazelles as a Sustainable Resource Mongolian Journal of Biological Sciences 1 (2): 43-48.

155 Underhill S, Grigg GC and DJ Yates (2004) Daily changes in plant water content in western Queensland: implications for red kangaroo foraging times. Rangel. J. 26 (1):100-108.

156 Grigg GC (2004) An evolutionary framework for studies of hibernation and short-term torpor. Pp 131-141 in Life in the Cold: Evolution, Adaptation, Mechanisms and Applications. Twelfth International Hibernation Symposium, edited by B.M. Barnes and H.V. Carey. Biological Papers of the University of Alaska, Number 27. 157 Grigg GC, LA Beard and M Augee (2004) The evolution of endothermy and its diversity in mammals and birds. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 77(6):982- 997.

158 Seymour RS, Bennett-Stamper CL, Johnston S, Carrier DR and GC Grigg (2004) Evidence of endothermic ancestors of crocodiles at the stem of Archosaur evolution. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 77(6):1051-1067.

159 Hall LS, Gordon G. Grigg, Craig Moritz, Besar Ketol, Isa Sait, Wahab Marni, Abdullah MT. 2004. Biogeography of fruit bats in Southeast Asia. Sarawak Museum Journal 80:191-284.

160 Jonzén N, Pople AR, Grigg GC and HP Possingham 2005 Of sheep and rain - large-scale population dynamics of the red kangaroo. J Animal Ecol 74:22-30.

161 Stawski CY, GC Grigg, DT Booth and LA Beard (2006) Temperature and the respiratory properties of whole blood in two reptiles, Pogona barbata and Emydura signata. Comp Biochem Physiol A 143:173-183.

162 Waugh CA, Grigg GC, Booth DT and LA Beard (2006) Respiration by buried echidnas, Tachyglossus aculeatus. J Exp Biol 209: 938-944

163 Underhill S, Grigg GC, Pople AR and DJ Yates (2007) A physiological assessment of the use of water point closures to control kangaroo numbers. Wildl Res 34(4):280-287.

164 Pople AR, Phinn S, Menke N, Grigg GC, Possingham HP, and C McAlpine (2007) Spatial patterns of kangaroo density across the South Australian pastoral zone over 26 years: aggregations during drought and suggestions of long distance movement. J. Appl. Ecol. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01344.x)

165 Sperling JB, Grigg GC, Beard LA and CJ Limpus (2007) Respiratory properties of the blood in flatback turtles (Natator depressus). J Comp Physiol B 177(7): 779-786. (doi10.1007/s00360-007-0174-3)

166 Read MA, Grigg GC, Irwin SR, Shanahan D and CE Franklin (2007) Satellite tracking reveals long distance coastal travel and homing by translocated Estuarine Crocodiles, Crocodylus porosus. PLoS ONE September 2007:9:e949. pp 1-5

167 Brien M, Read MA, McCallum HI and Grigg GC (2008) Home range and movements of radio-tracked Crocodylus porosus within a non-tidal waterhole. Wildlife Research 35:140-149.

168 Hulbert AJ, Beard LA and GC Grigg (2008) The exceptional longevity of an egg- laying mammal, the short-beaked echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus) is associated with peroxidation-resistant membrane composition. Experimental Gerontology 43: 729-733. 169 Pople Pople, A.R., Phinn, S., Grigg, G.C., Possingham, H.P., Menke, N., & McAlpine, C.A. (submitted) Spatial patterns of kangaroo density across the South Australian pastoral zone over 26 years: aggregation during drought and suggestions of long distance movement. Journal of Applied Ecology.

170 Pople, A.R., Phinn, S., Grigg, G.C., Possingham, H.P., Menke, N., McAlpine, C.A., Farroway, L., Payne, N., Lundie-Jenkins, G., Southwell, C.J., & Grice, D. (in prep.) Shifts in the pattern of distribution of the three kangaroo species in eastern Australia over the past 20 years towards the edge of their ranges. Ecography.

In Press

Grigg GC, Thompson MJ, Beard LA and P Harlow Oxygen levels in mound nests of Crocodylus porosus and Alligator mississippiensis are high, and gas exchange occurs primarily by diffusion, not convection. (In press, Australian Zoologist).

Stratford D, Grigg GC, McCallum H and H Hines. Breeding ecology and phenology of two stream breeding myobatrachid frogs (Mixophyes fleayi and M. fasciolatus) in south-east Queensland. (In press, Australian Zoologist).

Sperling JB, Grigg GC and CJ Limpus. Diving behaviour in two distinct populations of gravid Flatback turtles (Natator depressus). (In press, Australian Zoologist)

Lemckert F and GC Grigg. Living in the 80s – Calling seasons of frogs at Darkes Forest from 1987-1989 based on a historical data set. (Submitted, Australian Zoologist)

Popular/Unrefereed Articles (list incomplete)

1 Grigg GC 1965 The Prehistoric Lungfish. Wildlife in Australia 3(1):30-31.

2 Grigg GC 1972 The Queensland Lungfish - A Window to the Past. The University of Sydney News 4(3):4-7.

3 Grigg GC 1973 From Arid to Worse - But Fun. Hemisphere 17(10):18- 22.

4 Grigg GC and J Barker 1973 Frog calls of South-Eastern Australia. Recorded tape and booklet.

5 Grigg GC 1974 Tuning in to Crocodiles. Aust Nat Hist 18(3):78-83.

6 Grigg GC 1975 The Lungfish - Creature of the Past. Koolewong 4(2):11-13.

7 Grigg GC 197? Cane Toads in Australia. Readers Digest.

8 Grigg GC 1982 Sydney University's Research on Australian Crocodiles. The Zimbabwe Science News 16(9):204-207.

9 Grigg GC 1983 South Australian Kangaroo Management Forum - A Brief Review. Koolewong 12(3):4-7. 10 Grigg GC 1986 Camels by Satellite. Australian Geographic 5:42-45.

11 Grigg GC 1987 Camels in Australia. Aust Nat Hist 22(5):220-226.

12 Grigg GC 1987 Kangaroo harvesting: A new approach. Aust. Nat Hist 22(5):204- 205.

13 Grigg GC 1987 Kangaroos- a better economic base for our marginal grazing lands? Aust Zool 24(1):73-80.

14 Grigg GC 1987 Tracking camels in central Australia. Argos Newsletter 29:1-3.

15 Grigg GC 1987 Australia's kangaroos: their management, the public debate, and a plan for the future. Australian Wildlife Proceedings 104, Post Graduate Committee in Veterinary Science, The University of Sydney. pp 485-493.

16 Grigg GC 1988 Kangaroo harvesting and the conservation of arid lands. In "Kangaroo harvesting and the conservation of arid lands; a symposium". Eds. Grigg GC and D Lunney. (Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney).

17 Grigg GC 1988 Conservation of the sheep rangelands - are kangaroos a better economic base? Acres Australia, The Journal of Sustainable Agriculture1:17-19

18 Grigg GC, Beard LA and ML Augee 1990 Echidnas in the high country. Aust Nat Hist 23(7):528-537.

19 Grigg GC 1991 Kangaroos, land care and animal welfare: a proposal for change. Bull Ecol Soc Aust 21(2):30-35.

20 Grigg, GC 1993 Promoting the land care benefits of harvesting kangaroos, to overcome some of the present impediments. In "Workshop on Kangaroo Management" Eds. Grant GD and Ramsay BJ. pp23-26. Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Canberra.

21 Grigg GC 1994 Twenty years of wondering and worrying about how crocodiles live in salt water. Herpetology in Australia (pp. 265-277) Eds. D. Lunney and D. Ayres. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney.

22 Grigg GC 1994 Matching economic and conservation goals. In "Future of the Fauna in Western New South Wales" Eds. Lunney D, Hand S, Reed P and D Butcher. Preface pp iii-v. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Sydney.

23 Pople AR and GC Grigg 1994 Commercial use of wildlife for conservation. Workshop report in "Conservation Biology in Australia and Oceania" pp.363-366 Eds. Moritz C and J Kikkawa. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney.

24 Grigg GC 1995 Prospects for a different way to look at kangaroos: a resource not a pest. Proceedings of the Annual Queensland Landcare Conference, Longreach 1995:52-56. Edited by B Peterkin. Queensland Department of Primary Industries. 25 Grigg GC 1995 Kangaroo harvesting for conservation of rangelands, kangaroos and graziers. pp.161-165 In "Conservation through the sustainable use of wildlife" Eds. GC Grigg, D Lunney and PT Hale. Centre for Conservation Biology, The University of Queensland.

26 Grigg GC and D Lunney 1995 Workshop report: Potential conservation benefits from kangaroo harvesting. pp.339-340 In "Conservation through the sustainable use of wildlife" Eds. GC Grigg, D Lunney and PT Hale. Centre for Conservation Biology, The University of Queensland.

27 Grigg GC 1996 Counting on ‘roos. (Popular account of the aerial surveys conducted from a Drifter Ultralight aircraft.) Geo July 1996.

28 Grigg GC 1996 Opinion: Making a living from ‘roos, not sheep. Australian Geographic 45:33.

29 Grigg GC 1996 Harvesting kangaroos in Australia. Pp. 27-29. In Prescott-Allen R and C Prescott-Allen (Eds.) “Assessing the sustainability of uses of wild species: case studies and initial assessment procedure.” Occasional paper 12 of the IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

30 Grigg GC 1997 Regulated rangeland harvesting of kangaroos - conservation and animal welfare benefits. Conference proceedings from Self-Regulation in the Kangaroo Industry, September 1996. Australian Wildlife Protection Council.

31 Grigg GC 1997. Kangaroos: Sustainable use or pest control? In "Sustainable Use of Wildlife: Utopian dream or unrealistic nightmare?", pp 76-84. Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales.

32 Pople AR and GC Grigg 1998 Commercial harvesting of kangaroos in Australia.. http://www.environment.gov.au/bg/plants/wildlife/roo/roobg.htm Document prepared for Environment Australia.

33 Grigg GC 2000 Cane toads vs. native frogs. Nature Australia Winter 2000:32-41.

PROFESSOR CRAIG E FRANKLIN

Qualifications

1983 BSc(Hons), University of Canterbury, N.Z.

1989 Ph.D, University of Canterbury, N.Z

2002 Honorary Doctorate, University of Goteborg, Sweden

Awards

2006-2011 Professorial Research Fellowship – Australian Research Council

2003 Degree of Doctor Honoris Causa from the University of Goteborg, Sweden (Honorary doctorate)

2003 Finalist for Australian Awards for University Teaching – Innovation & practical approach to team teaching in large 1st year classes

2002 Whitley Book Award (New South Wales, Zoological Society) for "Crocodilian Biology and Evolution"

2000 The University of Queensland Teaching Excellence Award.

2000 Finalist in Australian Universities Teaching Awards (1st yr Biology Team)

1999 Commendation for Excellence in Teaching. The University of Queensland

1997 President's Medal - Society for Experimental Biology (UK).

1995 QEII ARC Fellowship (award declined in favour of lectureship at University of Queensland)

1993 NERC research fellowship - University of St. Andrews, Scotland

1992 Leverhulme Fellowship for Visiting Scientists - University of St. Andrews, Scotland

1991 University of Queensland Post-doctoral fellowship

1990 Prince and Princess of Wales Science Award - Royal Society of N.Z.

1990 Best Poster Presentation - Physiology Society of N.Z 1989 Massey University Post-doctoral Fellowship

1987 Young Scientist Award - Australian & N.Z. Society for Cell Biology

1987 Outstanding Student Presentation - Australian & N.Z. Society for Cell Biology

1984 University Grants Committee - Post graduate scholarship

1984 Senior Scholarship - University of Canterbury

1983 Percival Memorial Prize in Zoology (Top undergraduate)

Profile

Professor Craig Franklin is an Australian Professorial Fellow and Professor in Zoology at The University of Queensland. His research focuses on how aquatic and amphibian species such as turtles, frogs, fish and crocodiles can survive and function in changing conditions and environments. He has published over a 140 scientific articles, including papers in the prestigious journals Science and Nature.

Craig is one of the most published scientists in the area of freshwater turtles in Australia and has authored/ co-authored 14 publications on the physiology of Australian freshwater turtles, with particular focus on bimodal respiring species including Elusor macrurus, Elseya albagula, Rheodytes leukops and Emydura macquarii. He has been awarded a number of prestigious prizes during his career, including being appointed as an Australian Professorial Fellow by the Australian Research Council; receiving an Honorary Doctorate from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden; and receiving the President’s Medal from the Society for Experimental Biology, UK.

Professor Franklin has had 32 Honours and 14 Ph.D. students graduate from his laboratory and currently supervises 5 Ph.D. students

Employment

2006-2011 Australian Professorial Fellow

The University of Queensland – award by ARC

2005 Professor

The University of Queensland

2002-2005 Reader

The University of Queensland

1998-2001 Senior Lecturer in Zoology

The University of Queensland 1995-1997 Lecturer in Zoology

The University of Queensland

1993-1995 Research Fellow

University of St Andrews, Scotland

1992-1993 Honorary Lecturer

University of St Andrews, Scotland

1992-1993 Leverhulme Visiting Fellow

University of St Andrews, Scotland

1991-1992 Post-doctoral Fellow

University of Queensland

1989-1991 Post-doctoral Fellow

Massey University, New Zealand

1988 Temporary Leadership

University of Canterbury, New Zealand

Teaching

Undergraduate

2008-09 BIOL1030 Biodiversity and Ecology (1st year >500 students)

2001-07 BIOL1012 Animal Biology (1st year >700 students, lecturer & coordinator)

2001-09 ZOOL2030 Experimental and Physiological Zoology (2nd year > 70 students)

2001-09 ZOOL2029 Vertebrate Zoology (2nd year > 90 students)

2001-09 ZOOL3005 Animal Ecophysiology (3rd year > 50 students)

2005-09 BIOL3000 Conservation and Wildlife Biology (3rd year > 70 students)

Postgraduate

1995-present Honours student, 32 successfully completed, 2 current

1995-present Ph.D., 14 students completed, 5 current students Administration

2003-2006 Chair of Teaching & Learning Committee for School of Biological Sciences

Duties: coordination of undergraduate teaching program, review and evaluation of courses and teaching practices, program and course development; budgetary reconciliation

2008- present Convenor for the Major in Zoology

Duties – academic advising, evaluation, and reviewing program structure and content, developing and implementing new courses, Focussing on student outcomes and graduate attributes

Coordinator for Biomedical Twinning Program (UQ and University of Brunei Darussalam)

Duties: preparation of materials, team teaching and remote learning, lecturing courses in human physiology in Brunei, review of assessment methods and evaluation

Research

The underlying emphasis and direction of Craig’s research deals with the flexibility and plasticity of physiological systems in ectotherms in response to environmental change. Craig’s approach is to examine whole animal performance and the physiological responses of organ systems to the effects of environmental parameters such as temperature, salinity and oxygen levels in an attempt to determine physiological competency and whether compensatory mechanisms can be (acclimation) or have been (evolutionary adaptation) employed. He is particularly interested to initiate and apply experimental and physiological approaches to conservation issues and a strong proponent of the emerging field of Conservation Physiology.

Craig’s achievements within the research field of ecological and conservation physiology are wide ranging. I aim to examine within the fishes, amphibians and reptiles, the physiological challenges that are imposed by different environments and I take an integrative approach (i.e. behavioural, morphological, physiological, biochemical & molecular traits). I have provided below a brief summary of Craig’s achievements in the key areas I am currently active in.

Conservation Physiology

We are in the midst of a global biodiversity crisis where the impacts of various anthropogenic pressures are largely to blame. Understanding and predicting how animals, plants, fungi and prokaryotes respond to environmental change is becoming increasingly important as ecosystems are modified and threatened by human activity and rapid population growth. Effects of anthropogenic disturbance are wide-ranging and can influence all levels of biological organisation: from the genome, to biochemical and physiological function; to organismal performance, and to the maintenance of ecosystem services and biodiversity. The challenge ahead for biologists is to predict how organisms will respond and, if possible, adapt to rapid environmental change. Such information will be critical in order to predict the likely implications for loss of biodiversity and the development of conservation management plans.

Conservation Physiology explores the responses of organisms to anthropogenic threats and attempts to determine the ecophysiological constraints dictated by current conditions and future environmental change. Underpinned by ecological and physiological theory, conservation physiology takes a multidisciplinary and integrative approach that encompasses both field and laboratory based research. It aims to determine and assess the proximate abiotic factors that impose fitness consequences upon the organisms as a result of anthropogenic threats and thus allows us to forecast the responses of organisms to environmental change. As such it will assist in determining the degree of threat to organisms and therefore help to set priority areas for conservation action.

Conservation based projects currently being conducted in Craig’s laboratory include:

i. Thermal sensitivity of polar fish and predicted responses to climate change

ii. Effect of UV-B radiation of frog development and performance

iii. Thermal plasticity and dependence of intertidal mollusks

iv. Impact of dams on bimodal breathing turtles

Physiological Strategies of Aestivating Frogs (ARC Discovery Grant 2006-2010)

We have discovered that muscle atrophy (wasting) is inhibited in the green-striped burrowing frog despite being immobile for 9-12 months during aestivation. This is an exciting finding, as muscle disuse atrophy is a serious pathology affecting humans as a consequence of limb immobilisation, extended bed-rest, and space travel. We are currently, looking at how muscle atrophy is prevented, focusing on the role of metabolic depression, anti-oxidants and neurotransmission.

Diving Physiology and Behaviour (ARC Linkage Grant)

Understanding how diving vertebrates remain submerged for extended periods and the importance of cardiovascular responses and accessory respiratory structures in achieving long dives has been a strong focus of Craig’s lab over the past 10 years. We are currently studying:

i. the diving ecology and movements of freshwater and estuarine crocodiles

ii. the impact of environmental change and habitat disturbance on bimodal breathing turtles

iii. the trade-offs between diving and digestion in file snakes Thermal Biology (ARC Discovery Grant and ARC Linkage Grant)

I have a significant research program that investigating the effect of temperature on physiological systems in fish, amphibians and reptiles. Current studies include:

i. cardiovascular control during thermoregulation in reptiles (Discovery)

ii. the effect of incubation temperatures on muscle cellularity and growth in barramundi (Linkage)

iii. effect of temperature change on the cardiovascular system and performance of polar fish

iv. thermal dependence and plasticity in intertidal mollusks.

Salt and Water Balance in crocodiles

We are currently looking at the control and plasticity of crocodilian salt glands in response to environmental salinity & diet (ARC Discovery – just finished).Craig’s research has focused on cardio-respiratory, osmoregulatory and locomotor systems in fish, amphibians and reptiles. This has included: studying the intricacies of the crocodilian cardiovascular system; investigating mechanisms of evolutionary temperature compensation in antarctic fish; and, solving a debate about the functionality of the crocodilian salt glands in osmoregulation.

Research Funding (past 10 years)

Current

2006- 2010 Inhibition of muscle disuse atrophy in burrowing frogs, ARC $800,000

2006-2009 Improving the growth rate and flesh quality of cultured barramundi, ARC $400,000

2006-2009 Tracking crocodiles in 3 dimensions, ARC $800,000

2005-2009 Physiological thermoregulation & cardiovascular function in reptiles, ARC $290,000

2007 Integrative Physiology Equipment, RIBG $196,000

Past

2003- 2005 Phenotypic plasticity and control of crocodile salt glands, ARC $200,000

2002-2004 Salt and water balance in the euryhaline bull-shark, NERC $600,000 (In collaboration with Neil Hazon, University of St Andrews)

2003 Diving behaviour & physiology of Australian freshwater turtles, ARC $231,000 2001 Locomotor performance and muscle characteristics of aestivating frogs, ARC $101,000

2000 Effect of soil type on aestivating frogs, ARC (small) $14,000 (in collaboration with David Booth)

1999 Experimental conservation genetics of rainbowfish, ARC (large) $153,000 (in collaboration with Craig Moritz)

Publications (past 10 years)

Peer-Review Papers

1 Franklin, C.E., Read, M. A., Kraft, P.G., Liebsch, N., Irwin, S. R. and Campbell, H.A. (2009). Remote monitoring of crocodilians: Implantation, attachment and release methods for transmitters and data-loggers. Marine and Freshwater Research

2 Clark, N.J., Gordos, M.A. and Franklin, C.E. (2009). Implications of River Damming: The Influence of Aquatic Hypoxia on the Diving Physiology and Behaviour of the Endangered Mary River Turtle, Elusor macrurus. Animal Conservation

3 Carey G.R., Kraft, P.G., Cramp, R.L. and Franklin, C. E. (2009). Effect of incubation temperature on muscle morphology of barramundi (Lates calcarifer) at hatch and post-exogenous feeding. Journal of Fish Biology. Accepted Oct 2008

4 Carey, G.R. and Franklin, C.E. (2009). Effect of incubation and rearing temperature on locomotor ability in barramundi Lates calcarifer Bloch, 1790. Marine and Freshwater Research. Accepted Oct 2008

5 Storey, E.M. Kayes, S.M, de Vries, I; Franklin, C.E. (2008). Effect of water depth, velocity, and temperature on the surfacing frequency of the bimodally respiring turtle Elseya albagula. Functional Ecology 22, 840-846.

6 Hudson N.J, Lonhienne T.G.A., Franklin C.E., Harper, G.S. and Lehnert, S.A. (2008). Epigenetic-mediated gene silencing in dormant desert frogs. Journal of Comparative Physiology B. 178, 729-734.

7 Clark, N.J., Gordos M.A. and Franklin, C.E. (2008). Diving Behaviour, Aquatic Respiration, and Blood Oxygen Affinity: A Five Species Comparison of Australian Turtles. Journal of Zoology 275, 399-406.

8 Cramp, RL; Meyer, EA; Sparks, N; Franklin, CE (2008). Functional and morphological plasticity of crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) salt glands. Journal of Experimental Biology 211, 1482-1489.

9 Pillans, RD; Good, JP; Anderson, WG; Hazon, N; Franklin, CE. (2008). Rectal gland morphology of freshwater and seawater acclimated bull sharks Carcharhinus leucas. Journal of Fish Biology 72, 1559-1571 10 Clark, NJ; Gordos, MA; Franklin, CE (2008). Thermal plasticity of diving behavior, aquatic respiration, and locomotor performance in the Mary River turtle Elusor macrurus. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 81, 301-309.

11 Lavidis, NA; Hudson, NJ; Choy, PT; Lehnert, SA; Franklin, CE (2008). Role of calcium and vesicle-docking proteins in remobilising dormant neuromuscular junctions in desert frogs. Journal of Comparative Physiology A. Neuroethology, sensory neural and behavioural physiology 194, 27- 37.

12 Seebacher, F. and Franklin, C.E. (2007). Redistribution of blood within the body is important for thermoregulation in an ectothermic vertebrate (Crocodylus porosus). Journal of Comparative Physiology B. 177, 841-848.

13 Read MA, Grigg GC, Irwin SR, Shanahan D, Franklin CE (2007) Satellite tracking reveals long distance coastal travel and homing by translocated estuarine crocodiles, Crocodylus porosus. PLoS ONE 2(9): e949. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000949

14 Franklin, C.E., Davison, W. and Seebacher, F. (2007). Antarctic fish can compensate for rising temperatures: Thermal acclimation of cardiac performance in Pagothenia borchgrevinki. Journal of Experimental Biology 210, 3068-3074

15 van Uitregt, V. O., Wilson, R.S. and Franklin, C. E. (2007). Cooler temperatures increase sensitivity to ultraviolet B radiation in embryos and larvae of the frog, Limnodynastes peronii. Global Change Biology 13, 1114-1121

16 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 272, 458-469.

17 Cramp, R. L., Hudson, N. J., Holmberg, A., Holmgren, S. and Franklin, C. E. (2007). The effects of saltwater acclimation on neurotransmitters in the lingual salt glands of the estuarine crocodile, Crocodylus porosus. Regulatory Peptides 140, 55-64

18 Hudson, N. J., Harper, G. S., Allingham, P. G., Franklin, C. E., Barris, W. and Lehnert, S. A. (2007). Skeletal muscle extracellular matrix remodelling after aestivation in the green striped burrowing frog, Cyclorana alboguttata. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology a-Molecular & Integrative Physiology 146, 440-445

19 Symonds, B. L., James, R. S. and Franklin, C. E. (2007). Getting the jump on skeletal muscle disuse atrophy: preservation of contractile performance in aestivating Cyclorana alboguttata (Gunther 1867). Journal of Experimental Biology 210, 825-835

20 Kraft, P. G., Wilson, R. S., Franklin, C. E. and Blows, M. W. (2006). Substantial changes in the genetic basis of tadpole morphology of Rana lessonae in the presence of predators. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 19, 1813-1818 21 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-Biochemical Systemic and Environmental Physiology 176, 739-747

22 Anderson, W. G., Pillans, R. D., Hyodo, S., Tsukada, T., Good, J. P., Takei, Y., Franklin, C. E. and Hazon, N. (2006). The effects of freshwater to seawater transfer on circulating levels of angiotensin II, C-type natriuretic peptide and arginine vasotocin in the euryhaline elasmobranch, Carcharhinu's leucas. General and Comparative Endocrinology 147, 39-46

23 Niehaus, A. C., Wilson, R. S. and Franklin, C. E. (2006). Short- and long-term consequences of thermal variation in the larval environment of anurans. Journal of Animal Ecology 75, 686-692

24 Pillans, R. D., Anderson, W. G., Good, J. P., Hyodo, S., Takei, Y., Hazon, N. and Franklin, C. E. (2006). Plasma and erythrocyte solute properties of juvenile bull sharks, Carcharhinus leucas, acutely exposed to increasing environmental salinitv. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 331, 145-157

25 Kraft, P. G., Franklin, C. E. and Blows, M. W. (2006). Predator-induced phenotypic plasticity in tadpoles: extension or innovation? Journal of Evolutionary Biology 19, 450-458.

26 Hazon, N., Anderson, W. G., Wells, A. W., Good, J. P., Pillans, R. D. and Franklin, C. E. (2006). Ion and urea regulation in elasmobranch fish. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part a-Comparative Experimental Biology 305A, 132-132

27 Gordos, M. A., Limpus, C. J. and Franklin, C. E. (2006). Response of heart rate and cloacal ventilation in the bimodally respiring freshwater turtle, Rheodytes leukops to experimental changes in aquatic PO2. Journal of Comparative Physiology B- Biochemical Systemic and Environmental Physiology 176, 65-73

28 Hudson, N. J., Lehnert, S. A., Ingham, A. B., Symonds, B., Franklin, C. E. and Harper, G. S. (2006). Lessons from an estivating frog: sparing muscle protein despite starvation and disuse. American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory Integrative and Comparative Physiology 290, R836-R843.

29 Seebacher, F., and Franklin, C.E., (2005). Cardiovascular mechanisms during thermoregulation in reptiles. International Congress Series 1275, 242-249.

Cramp, R. L. and Franklin, C. E. (2005). Arousal and re-feeding rapidly restores digestive tract morphology following aestivation in green-striped burrowing frogs. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology a-Molecular & Integrative Physiology 142, 451-460. 30 Franklin, C. E., Taylor, G. and Cramp, R. L. (2005). Cholinergic and adrenergic innervation of lingual salt glands of the estuarine crocodile, Crocodylus porosus. Australian Journal of Zoology 53, 345-351.

31 Seebacher, F. and Franklin, C. E. (2005). Physiological mechanisms of thermoregulation in reptiles: a review. Journal of Comparative Physiology B- Biochemical Systemic and Environmental Physiology 175, 533-541.

32 Anderson, W. G., Good, J. P., Pillans, R. D., Hazon, N. and Franklin, C. E. (2005). Hepatic urea biosynthesis in the euryhaline elasmobranch Carcharhinus leucas. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part a-Comparative Experimental Biology 303A, 917-921.

33 Seebacher, F., Davison, W., Lowe, C. J. and Franklin, C. E. (2005). A falsification of the thermal specialization paradigm: compensation for elevated temperatures in Antarctic fishes. Biology Letters 1, 151-154.

34 Anderson, W. G., Hyodo, S., Tsukada, T., Meischke, L., Pillans, R. D., Good, J. P., Takei, Y., Cramb, G., Franklin, C. E. and Hazon, N. (2005). Sequence, circulating levels, and expression of C-type natriuretic peptide in a euryhaline elasmobranch, Carcharhinus leucas. General and Comparative Endocrinology 144, 90-98.

35 Kraft, P. G., Wilson, R. S. and Franklin, C. E. (2005). Predator-mediated phenotypic plasticity in tadpoles of the striped marsh frog, Limnodynastes peronii. Austral Ecology 30, 558-563.

36 Cramp, R. L., Franklin, C. E. and Meyer, E. A. (2005). The impact of prolonged fasting during aestivation on the structure of the small intestine in the green-striped burrowing frog, Cyclorana alboguttata. Acta Zoologica 86, 13-24.

37 Hudson, N. J., Lavidis, N. A., Choy, P. T. and Franklin, C. E. (2005). Effect of prolonged inactivity on skeletal motor nerve terminals during aestivation in the burrowing frog, Cyclorana alboguttata. Journal of Comparative Physiology a- Neuroethology Sensory Neural and Behavioral Physiology 191, 373-379.

38 Seebacher, F., Franklin, C. E. and Read, M. (2005). Diving behaviour of a reptile (Crocodylus johnstoni) in the wild: Interactions with heart rate and body temperature. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 78, 1-8.

39 Pillans, R. D., Good, J. P., Anderson, W. G., Hazon, N. and Franklin, C. E. (2005). Freshwater to seawater acclimation of juvenile bull sharks (Carcharhinus leucas): plasma osmolytes and Na+/K+-ATPase activity in gill, rectal gland, kidney and intestine. Journal of Comparative Physiology B-Biochemical Systemic and Environmental Physiology 175, 37-44.

40 Seebacher, F. and Franklin, C. E. (2004). Integration of autonomic and local mechanisms in regulating cardiovascular responses to heating and cooling in a reptile (Crocodylus porosus). Journal of Comparative Physiology B-Biochemical Systemic and Environmental Physiology 174, 577-585.

41 Gordos, M. A., Franklin, C. E. and Limpus, C. J. (2004). Effect of water depth and water velocity upon the surfacing frequency of the bimodally respiring freshwater turtle, Rheodytes leukops. Journal of Experimental Biology 207, 3099-3107.

42 Pillans, R. D. and Franklin, C. E. (2004). Plasma osmolyte concentrations and rectal gland mass of bull sharks Carcharhinus leucas, captured along a salinity gradient. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology a-Molecular & Integrative Physiology 138, 363-371.

43 Goudkamp, J. E., Seebacher, F., Ahern, M. and Franklin, C. E. (2004). Physiological then-noregulation in a crustacean? Heart rate hysteresis in the freshwater crayfish Cherax destructor. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology a-Molecular & Integrative Physiology 138, 399-403.

44 Gordos, M. A., Franklin, C. E., Limpus, C. J. and Wilson, G. (2004). Blood- respiratory and acid-base changes during extended diving in the bimodally respiring freshwater turtle Rheodytes leukops. Journal of Comparative Physiology B-Biochemical Systemic and Environmental Physiology 174, 347-354.

45 Pillans, R. D., Franklin, C. E. and Tibbetts, I. R. (2004). Food choice in Siganus fuscescens: influence of macrophyte nutrient content and availability. Journal of Fish Biology 64, 297-309.

46 Hudson, N. J., Bennett, M. B. and Franklin, C. E. (2004). Effect of aestivation on long bone mechanical properties in the green-striped burrowing frog, Cyclorana alboguttata. Journal of Experimental Biology 207, 475-482.

47 Hazon, N., Wells, A., Pillans, R. D., Good, J. P., Anderson, W. G. and Franklin, C. E. (2003). Urea based osmoregulation and endocrine control in elasmobranch fish with special reference to euryhalinity. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology B- Biochemistry & Molecular Biology 136, 685-700.

48 Cramp, R. L. and Franklin, C. E. 2003. Is re-feeding efficiency compromised by prolonged starvation during aestivation in the green striped burrowing frog, Cyclorana alboguttata? - Journal of Experimental Zoology Part a-Comparative Experimental Biology 300A: 126-132.

49 Gordos, M. A., Franklin, C. E. and Limpus, C. J. 2003. Seasonal changes in the diel surfacing behaviour of the bimodally respiring turtle Rheodytes leukops. - Canadian Journal of Zoology-Revue Canadienne De Zoologie 81: 1614-1622.

50 Elsworth, P. G., Seebacher, F. and Franklin, C. E. 2003. Sustained swimming performance in crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus): Effects of body size and temperature. - Journal of Herpetology 37: 363-368. 51 Anderson, W. G., Good, J. P., Franklin, C. E. and Hazon, N. 2003. Scaling of rectal gland mass in the European lesser-spotted dogfish. - Journal of Fish Biology 62: 749-751.

52 Davison, W. and Franklin, C. E. 2003. Hypertension in Pagothenia borchgrevinki caused by X-cell disease. - Journal of Fish Biology 63: 129-136.

53 Seebacher, F. and Franklin, C. E. 2003. Prostaglandins are important in thermoregulation of a reptile (Pogona vitticeps). - Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 270: S50-S53.

54 Franklin, C. E., Davis, B. M., Peucker, S. K. J., Stephenson, H., Mayer, R., Whittier, J., Lever, J. and Grigg, G. C. 2003. Comparison of stress induced by manual restraint and immobilisation in the estuarine crocodile, Crocodylus porosus. - Journal of Experimental Zoology Part a-Comparative Experimental Biology 298A: 86-92.

55 Gordos, M. A., Franklin, C. E. and Limpus, C. J. 2003. Seasonal changes in the diving performance of the bimodally respiring freshwater turtle Rheodytes leukops in a natural setting. - Canadian Journal of Zoology 81: 617-625.

56 Hudson, N. J. and Franklin, C. E. 2003. Preservation of three-dimensional capillary structure in frog muscle during aestivation. - Journal of Anatomy 202: 471-474.

57 Seebacher, F., Elsworth, P. G. and Franklin, C. E. 2003. Ontogenetic changes of swimming kinematics in a semi-aquatic reptile (Crocodylus porosus). - Australian Journal of Zoology 51: 15-24.

58 Franklin, C. E. and Seebacher, F. 2003. The effect of heat transfer mode on heart rate responses and hysteresis during heating and cooling in the estuarine crocodile Crocodylus porosus. - Journal of Experimental Biology 206: 1143-1151.

59 McGuigan, K., Franklin, C. E., Moritz, C. and Blows, M. W. 2003. Adaptation of rainbow fish to lake and stream habitats. - Evolution 57: 104-118.

60 Franklin, C. E., Wilson, R. S. and Davison, W. 2003. Locomotion at-1.0 degrees C: burst swimming performance of five species of Antarctic fish. - Journal of Thermal Biology 28: 59-65.

61 Priest, T. E. and Franklin, C. E. 2002. Effect of water temperature and oxygen levels on the diving behavior of two freshwater turtles: Rheodytes leukops and Emydura macquarii. - Journal of Herpetology 36: 555-561.

62 Gordos, M. and Franklin, C. E. 2002. Diving behaviour of two Australian bimodally respiring turtles, Rheodytes leukops and Emydura macquarii, in a natural setting. - Journal of Zoology 258: 335-342. 63 Wilson, R. S., Kuchel, L. J., Franklin, C. E. and Davison, W. 2002. Turning up the heat on subzero fish: thermal dependence of sustained swimming in an Antarctic notothenioid. - Journal of Thermal Biology 27: 381-386.

64 Hudson, N. J. and Franklin, C. E. 2002. Maintaining muscle mass during extended disuse: Aestivating frogs as a model species. - Journal of Experimental Biology 205: 2297-2303.

65 Wilson, R. S. and Franklin, C. E. 2002. The detrimental acclimation hypothesis - Response. - Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17: 408-408.

66 Davison, W. and Franklin, C. E. 2002. The Antarctic nemertean Parborlasia corrugatus: an example of an extreme oxyconformer. - Polar Biology 25: 238-240.

67 Hudson, N. J. and Franklin, C. E. 2002. Effect of aestivation on muscle characteristics and locomotor performance in the Green-striped burrowing frog, Cyclorana alboguttata. - Journal of Comparative Physiology B-Biochemical Systemic and Environmental Physiology 172: 177-182.

68 Wilson, R. S. and Franklin, C. E. 2002. Testing the beneficial acclimation hypothesis. - Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17: 66-70.

70 Seebacher, F. and Franklin, C. E. 2001. Control of heart rate during thermoregulation in the heliothermic lizard Pogona barbata: importance of cholinergic and adrenergic mechanisms. - Journal of Experimental Biology 204: 4361-4366.

71 Wilson, R. S., Franklin, C. E., Davison, W. and Kraft, P. 2001. Stenotherms at sub- zero temperatures: thermal dependence of swimming performance in Antarctic fish. - Journal of Comparative Physiology B-Biochemical Systemic and Environmental Physiology 171: 263-269.

72 Axelsson, M. and Franklin, C. E. 2001. The calibre of the foramen of Panizza in Crocodylus porosus is variable and under adrenergic control. - Journal of Comparative Physiology B-Biochemical Systemic and Environmental Physiology 171: 341-346.

73 Axelsson, M., Olsson, C., Gibbins, I., Holmgren, S. and Franklin, C. E. 2001. Nitric oxide, a potent vasodilator of the aortic anastomosis in the estuarine crocodile, Crocodylus porosus. - General and Comparative Endocrinology 122: 198-204.

74 Franklin, C., Axelsson, M. and Davison, W. 2001. Constancy and control of heart rate during an increase in temperature in the Antarctic fish Pagothenia borchgrevinki. - Experimental Biology Online 6: 1-8.

75 Wilson, R. S. and Franklin, C. E. 2000. Inability of adult Limnodynastes peronii (Amphibia : Anura) to thermally acclimate locomotor performance. - Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology a-Molecular and Integrative Physiology 127: 21-28. 76 Franklin, C. E. and Axelsson, M. 2000. An actively controlled heart valve. - Nature 406: 847-848.

Kuchel, L. J. and Franklin, C. E. 2000. Morphology of the cloaca in the estuarine crocodile, Crocodylus porosus, and its plastic response to salinity. - Journal of Morphology 245: 168-176.

77 Fernandez, D. A., Calvo, J., Franklin, C. E. and Johnston, I. A. 2000. Muscle fibre types and size distribution in sub-antarctic notothenioid fishes. - Journal of Fish Biology 56: 1295-1311.

78 Wilson, R. S., Franklin, C. E. and James, R. S. 2000. Allometric scaling relationships of jumping performance in the striped marsh frog Limnodynastes peronii. - Journal of Experimental Biology 203: 1937-1946.

79 Wilson, R. S. and Franklin, C. E. 2000. Effect of ontogenetic increases in body size on burst swimming performance in tadpoles of the striped marsh frog, Limnodynastes peronii. - Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 73: 142-152.

80 Franklin, C. E. 2000. Aquatic respiration and diving in the freshwater turtle, Rheodytes leukops. - Journal of Physiology-London 523: 87S-87S.

81 Axelsson, M., Davison, W. and CE, F. 2000. Cholinergic and adrenergic tone on the heart of the Antarctic dragonfish, Gymnodraco acuticeps, living at sub-zero temperatures. - Experimental Biology Online 5: 1-7.

82 Andrews, P. L., Axelsson, M., Franklin, C. and Holmgren, S. 2000. The emetic reflex in a reptile (Crocodylus porosus). - J Exp Biol 203 Pt 10: 1625-1632.

83 Franklin, C., Seebacher, F., Grigg, G. C., Axelsson;, M., Russell, D. A., Stoskopf, M. K., Fisher, P. E. and Barrick, R. E. 2000. At the Crocodilian Heart of the Matter. - Science 289: 1687c-1688.

84 Wilson, R. S. and Franklin, C. E. 1999. Thermal acclimation of locomotor performance in tadpoles of the frog Limnodynastes peronii. - Journal of Comparative Physiology B-Biochemical Systemic and Environmental Physiology 169: 445-451.

85 Taylor, S. E., Egginton, S., Taylor, E. W., Franklin, C. E. and Johnston, I. A. 1999. Estimation of intracellular pH in muscle of fishes from different thermal environments. - Journal of Thermal Biology 24: 199-208.

86 Soderstrom, V., Nilsson, G. E., Renshaw, G. M. C. and Franklin, C. E. 1999. Hypoxia stimulates cerebral blood flow in the estuarine crocodile (Crocodylus porosus). - Neuroscience Letters 267: 1-4.

87 Franklin, C. E. 1998. Studies of evolutionary temperature adaptation: Muscle function and locomotor performance in Antarctic fish. - Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology 25: 753-756. 88 Altimiras, J., Franklin, C. E. and Axelsson, M. 1998. Relationships between blood pressure and heart rate in the saltwater crocodile Crocodylus porosus. - Journal of Experimental Biology 201: 2235-2242.

89 Forster, M. E., Davison, W., Axelsson, M., Sundin, L., Franklin, C. E. and Gieseg, S. 1998. Catecholamine release in heat-stressed Antarctic fish causes proton extrusion by the red cells. - Journal of Comparative Physiology B-Biochemical Systemic and Environmental Physiology 168: 345-352.

90 Kagstrom, J., Olsson, C., Axelsson, M. and Franklin, C. E. 1998. Peptidergic control of gastrointestinal blood flow in the estuarine crocodile, Crocodylus porosus. - American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory Integrative and Comparative Physiology 274: R1740-R1750.

91 Kuchel, L. J. and Franklin, C. E. 1998. Kidney and cloaca function in the estuarine crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) at different salinities: Evidence for solute-linked water uptake. - Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology a-Molecular and Integrative Physiology 119: 825-831.

Books

1 Carey, P.W. and Franklin C.E. (2006). Antarctica Cruising Guide. Awa Press, Wellington, N.Z. 233pp.

Grigg, G.C., Seebacher, F. and Franklin, C.E. (2001). Crocodilian Biology and Evolution. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, N.S.W.

Book chapters

1 Franklin, C., Axelsson, M., Sundin, L., Davison, W., 2004. Antarctic Fish: Survival and performance at -1.86oC. In: Elzinga, A., Nordin, T., Turner, D., Wrakberg, U. (Eds.), Antarctic Challenges: Historical and current perspectives on Otto Nordenskjold's Antarctic expedition 1901-1903., Royal Society of Arts and Sciences in Goteborg, Goteborg, pp. 233-244

2 Kuchel, L.J. and Franklin, C.E. (2001). Osmoregulatory plasticity in the estuarine crocodile. Crocodile Biology and Evolution, Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, N.S.W.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR JEAN-MARC HERO

Qualifications

1991 Doctor of Philosophy

Division of Australian Environmental Studies, Griffith University Nathan, Qld. 4111 Australia

1988 Masters Preliminary (Qualifying by Course work): Australian Environmental Studies, Griffith University.

1980 Bachelor of Science Degree, Australian Environmental Studies, Griffith University.

Awards

2007 Feature article published in the journal Diseases of Aquatic Organisms

2002 Biotropica Award for Excellence in Tropical Biology: presented to the author of a paper published during the calendar year of 2001 in Biotropica for an outstanding contribution based on research conducted in tropical regions.

Profile

Jean-Marc Hero is an Associate Professor at the School of Environment at Griffith University. He has over 18 years experience in research and teaching, with a specific focus on conservation biology of amphibians and reptiles, particularly life history, characteristics of rarity and extinction, global amphibian declines and community ecology of amphibians.

Marc is currently the Secretary General Elect of the World Congress of Herpetology (2008 to 2012) and has been a committee member since 2001. He has also served on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (ICUN) Amphibian Specialist Group. He is considered one of Australia’s leading scientists in relation to amphibian biology and species conservation, with particular experience with the Giant Barred Frog. Marc has authored, co-authored and refereed over 100 scientific publications, including book chapters and journal articles. Marc has also supervised over 50 PhD, post graduate and undergraduate student research projects.

Employment

Present Associate Professor, Level D, School of Environment, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus

Appointments

2001- present Secretary General Elect, World Congress of Herpetology. 2008- 2012.

2002-present Australian representative on the Board of Governors, Society for Conservation Biology, Australasian Section (OZNZBOG) June 2002- present.

2002 – present Chair of the Education Committee, Society for Conservation Biology, Australasian Section (OZNZBOG) June 2002- present.

2002 – present International Coordinator and Australian Global Partner for AmphibiaWeb. Based at the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, U.S.A. (May 2002 – present).

2001 – present Associate Researcher: Rainforest CRC - Project 6.1

2000- present Coordinator – IUCN – Australian Global Amphibian Assessment.

1998- - present Committee Member and Editor: Australian Society of Herpetologists.

1998 – present Web-Manager: Australian Society of Herpetologists.

2007 Committee Member, World Congress of Herpetology.

IUCN Amphibian Specialist Group

2006 – 2007 Vice-President, President Australian Society of Herpetologists. March 2006 - 2007.

2005 – 2006 President, Australian Society of Herpetologists. January 2005 - March 2006.

2001-2006 Web-Manager: International Herpetological Committee.

2001-2005 Deputy Chair: International Herpetological Committee.

2003 International Reviewer: South African National Research Foundation

1990 – 1991 Secretary: Victorian Herp Group July 1990 - March 1991. Member: Society of Conservation Biology, Ecological Society of Australia. Australasian Wildlife Management Society. American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists. Australian Society of Herpetologists.

Teaching

2004 - present Botany & Zoology 1604 Teaching 25 %

2003 - present Vertebrate Biology 3609 Convenor, teaching 100%

2000 - present Ecology 2603 Teaching 30%

1998 - present Experimental Design & Statistics 6109 Convenor, teaching 100%

1997 - 2008 Conservation Biology 3606 Convenor, teaching 60%

2004 Environmental Assessment & Management 3304 Guest Lecturer

1997 - 2003 Botany & Zoology, code 1604 Convenor, teaching 60%

1998 -2002 Vertebrate Biology 3609 Teaching 15%

1999 - 2002 Wildlife Management 3601 Teaching 15%

1998 - 2002 Field Research Project 3101 Convenor

1997 &1999 Biological Disturbance Assessment 2605 Teaching 10%

1997 - 1999 Ecology 2603 Convenor, teaching 60%

1998 Field Ecology (Nathan) ? Teaching 10%

1997 Environmental Monitoring Techniques 2503 Teaching 10%

2008 140 students Botany & Zoology 1604 Convenor 20%, Teaching 25%

65 students Ecology 2603 Teaching 30%

53 students Conservation Biology 3606 Convenor, teaching 30%

35 students Vertebrate Biology 3609 Convenor, teaching 100%

5 students Experimental Design & Statistics 6109 Convenor, teaching 100%

Teaching Experience Prior to Griffith Appointment

1993 – 1996 Lecturer B (16% Fractional Appointment): Department of Zoology, James Cook University. Teaching Activities include: Lecturing in: Australian Vertebrate Fauna; Wildlife Ecology and Wildlife Techniques (3rd year zoology courses). January 1993 - 1996. 1989 Demonstrator: Environmental Biology Labs, Griffith University.

1989 Chairperson: Brisbane Ecology Get-together Seminars.

1988 Chairperson: Griffith University Ecology Discussion Group.

1988 Demonstrator: Environmental Biology Labs, Griffith University.

1986 & 1987 Demonstrator: Field Ecology, National Institute for Amazon Research.

International Teaching Appointments

2003 Invited by the Fijian Institute of Applied Sciences and the University of South Pacific to teach a 2 week intensive course “Experimental Design & Statistics” in Fiji in November 2003.

2002 Visiting Professor in the Department of Integrative Biology, University of California - Berkeley campus, USA, (March-May 2002). Invited to teach the postgraduate subject entitled Experimental Design & Statistics (IB 291-3, Spring 2002).

Administrative and Committee work

August 2006- present Deputy Director, Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies

January - June 2007 Acting Director, Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies

2004– present School Representative, GU Animal Ethics Committee

2004– present School Representative, GU Industry Mentoring Program Launches

As required till 2006 Acting Head of School, School of Environmental & Applied Sciences

1999 – 2004 Committee Member, GU Site Planning Committee

3 Sept. 2001 Committee Member, GU Faculty of ENS Staff Committee (co-opted)

December 2004 Acting Head of School, School of Environmental & Applied Sciences

January 2003 Acting Head of School, School of Environmental & Applied Sciences

1997- 2001 Committee Member School Committee, EAS

1997– 2003 Committee Member, School Sub-assessment Panel (SEAS) 1998– 2003 Chair, School Research and Postgraduate Subcommittee (SEAS)

1999 Chair, School Seminar Series (SEAS)

1999 School Representative, Library Advisory Group

January 1999 Acting Head of School, School of Environmental & Applied Sciences

Sept 28 – Oct 1, 1999 Acting Head of School, School of Environmental & Applied Sciences

December, 2004 Acting Head of School, School of Environmental & Applied Sciences

University Administrative Teaching Service

2007 –present Course Convenor, ENV named Degree: BSC (Ecology and Conservation)

2007 –present Committee Member, ENV Postgrad Coursework Review Program Development Team

2003 –present Subject Convenor, EAS 3107 Vertebrate Biology

1999 –present Subject Convenor, ASC 6109 Experimental Design & Statistics

1997 –present Subject Convenor, EAS 3606 Conservation Biology

1998 –2006 Course Convenor, EAS Major in Wildlife Biology

1999 –2000. Subject Convenor, ASC 2603 Ecology

1998 –2002 Subject Convenor, ASC 3102 Field Research Project

1998 –2001 Deputy Convenor, EAS Honours Program

1999 Subject Convenor, ASC 6108 Introduction to Research

1997 –2002 Subject Convenor, ASC 1602 Botany & Zoology

Internal University Service

Annually Academic representative

Griffith University Graduation Ceremonies

2006 - present Ethics advisor, Animal Ethics Committee Jan.-July 2008 Host to Distinguished Guest, Dr Monique Van Sluys, University of rio de Janeiro, Brasil

Mar. 2007 Host to Distinguished Guest, Captain Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd Society

Jan. 2007 Host to Distinguished Guest, Dr W. E. Magnusson National Institute for Amazon Research, Brasil

Dec. 2005 Host to Distinguished Guest, Dr Bill Laurance. Smithsonian Research Institute, Panama.

Aug. 2006-Sept. 2007 Host to Distinguished Guest. Dr Monique Van Sluys, University of rio de Janeiro, Brasil

Aug. 2006 Public Lecture, Griffith University Discovery Lecture Series

Oct. 2004 Host to Distinguished Guest, Dr Bill Laurance. Smithsonian Research Institute, Panama.

Feb. 2004 Host to Distinguished Guest, Dr D. Skelly. School Seminar. Yale University USA

Apr. 2003 Host to Distinguished Guest, Dr S.Williams. School Seminar. James Cook University

Jan. 2003 Host to Distinguished Guest, Dr W. E. Magnusson & Dr A. Lima, National Institute for Amazon Research, Brasil

Aug. 2001 Host to Delegates, Academic Delegation from Argentina, South America

2001 Host to Delegates, Academic Delegation from South America

1999 Host to Distinguished Guest, Academic Delegation from Zhongshan University, China

Nov. 1999 Seminar Presentation, School Seminar Series

Oct. 1999 Examiner, Site Planning Committee/ School of Engineering Seminar

Oct. 1999 Host to Distinguished Guest, Dr Shahid Naeem. University of Washington. USA

Oct. 1999 Academic Representative, ENS Postgraduate Ecology Symposium

Sept. 1999 Site inspection, Science II Building under construction Sept. 1999 Site inspection, Science II Building under construction. Gold Coast manager

Sept. 1999 Invited Member, Site planning committee meeting

Aug. 1998 Academic Representative, Postgraduate Ecology Symposium

National Professional Services External to Griffith University – 1997 – present

Annually Expert advisor, Regular Radio, Newspaper and TV interviews

2007 Committee Member, Biodiversity Extinction Crisis Conference Sydney July 2007

2007 Expert Advisor, Qld EPA, Fauna Conservation Management Profiles

2007 Expert Advisor, Brisbane City Council, Aquatic Fauna Expert Panel for assessing Brisbane's Waterways

Feb. 2007 Guest Speaker, Qld Environmental Protection Agency, QPWS Seminar Series

Aug. 2006 Expert Advisor, SEQ Biodiversity Planning Assessment: expert fauna panel –

Feb. 2006 Guest Speaker, Qld Environmental Protection Agency, QPWS Seminar Series

2000 - 2004 Academic supervisor, Siemens Science School, presented ecology, practical lab sessions.

2003-2004 Expert Advisor, Brisbane City Council, Expert Panel for the Assessment of Species of high conservation priority.

Nov. 2004 Expert Advisor, Baw Baw Frog conservation. Invited to a 1 day meeting in Melbourne by the Australian Wilderness Society and the Southern Alliance.

Oct. 2004 Guest Speaker, Qld Environmental Protection Agency, QPWS Seminar Series

2003-2004 School Representative, Gold Coast Region Environmental Industry Association (GREIA)

Oct. 2003 Guest Speaker, Gold Coast high schools BBQ Gold Coast Airport

1999 - 2003 Editor, Australian Society of Herpetologists. 2000 - present WebMaster, Australian Society of Herpetologists.

2000 - present Expert Advisor, IUCN Global Amphibian Assessment, Australian coordinator.

1997- present Expert Advisor, Commonwealth Department of Environment / Qld Department of Environment, Threatened Frog Recovery Team

1997- present Scientific Advisor, Australian Geographic Magazine

1999- present Expert Advisor, Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Queensland Environmental Protection Agency

2001 Expert Advisor, risbane City Council, Expert Panel for the Conservation Assessment of Remnants within Brisbane (4 workshops)

1997- present Expert Advisor, Australian Geographic Magazine

May 2000 Expert Advisor, Brisbane City Council: Karawatha Erosion Control Workshop

Apr. 2000 Invited Scientist, Australian Geographic Expedition to White Mountains

Mar. 2000 Expert Advisor, Gold Coast City Council Biodiversity Index Workshop

May 2000 Expert Advisor, Gold Coast City Council Biodiversity Index Workshop II

June 1999 - present Expert Advisor, Ngerang-Wal Land Council collaborative projects within the Griffith Centre for Coastal Management.

Apr. 1999 Expert Advisor, Sunshine Coast Mosquito Control Committee Meeting

1999 Assessor, Southern Cross University, ARC Small Grant Applications

Oct.1997 Expert Advisor, Environment Australia, Qld DNR: Response to Disturbance Workshop

July 1997 Invited Scientist, Australian Geographic Expedition to Coongie Lakes

International Professional Services External to Griffith University 1997 – present

2007 - present Expert Advisor, IUCN Amphibian Specialist Group 2008 Committee Member 6 World Congress of Herpetology Manaus Amazonas, Brasil, 2008

2007- 2008 Symposium Chair, Symposium Amphibians and Climate Change. 6WCH 2008

2002 - present International Coordinator, AmphibiaWeb: University of California - Berkeley.

2002 - present Global Partner, AmphibiaWeb: University of California, Australian Region.

2003 – present. Expert Advisor, Technical Advisory Group for the Cane Toad Eradication Project in Fiji. IUCN Cooperative Islands Initiative

2007- present Chief Investigator, Memorandum of Understanding between Griffith University and World Wildlife Fund - Nepal.

2007- present Chief Investigator, Memorandum of Understanding between Griffith University and the National Institute for Amazon Research, Amazonas, Brasil.

2007- present Chief Investigator, Memorandum of Understanding between Griffith University and the University of Wellington, New Zealand.

2005 Invited Speaker, World Congress of Herpetology. South Africa, June.

Feb. 2005 Conference Director, Inaugural joint meeting of the Australian Society of Herpetologists, The Society for Research on Amphibians and Reptiles of New Zealand, and the Fijian Society of Herpetologists (over 150 delegates, and 100 presentations over 5 days).

Nov. 2004. Expert Advisor, Conservation International. Invited to a 2 day meeting in New Zealand by the IUCN Cooperative Islands Initiative.

July 2004 Invited Speaker, Yale University.

July 2004 Invited Speaker, Symposium on “Herp conservation in human- dominated landscapes”. Society for Conservation Biology, New York, 2004.

July 2004 Invited Speaker, Conservation International in Washington DC, USA. 2003 Guest Lecturer, Invited by the Fijian Institute of Applied Sciences to teach a 2 week intensive course “Experimental Design & Statistics” at the University of the South Pacific, Fiji in November.

Nov. 2003 Expert Advisor, Conservation International and the University of the South Pacific, 1-week workshop on Cane Toad eradication options for Fiji.

2002 Invited Speaker, Symposium on 'Global Amphibian Declines'. Society for Conservation Biology, UK.

2003 Invited Speaker, Symposium on 'Amazonian Biodiversity'. Society for Conservation Biology, Brasil.

2002 Instigator, Memorandum of Understanding between Griffith University and the University of Rio de Janeiro, Brasil

Feb. 2001 Organiser & Facilitator, IUCN Workshop to assess the conservation status of Australian Frogs. Tasmania

Research

Jean-Marc has research interests in the following areas:

„ Conservation biology of amphibians and reptiles.

„ Life history characteristics of rarity and extinction.

„ Ecological determinants of species diversity and richness.

„ Gradient Ecology: Influence of altitude latitude and longitude on Biodiversity.

„ Community ecology of amphibians (adult and larval).

„ Population ecology ( PVA: population viability analysis ).

„ Environmental management & impact assessment.

„ Toxicology of herbicides and pesticides to amphibian larvae.

„ Population genetics of amphibian populations.

„ Cane Toad interactions (adult and larval).

„ Anuran bioacoustics.

„ Research Experience

1994-1996 Senior Research Fellow Declining Frog Project: Wet Tropics Management Authority; Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management; Department of Zoology, James Cook University. Research activities include: population and behavioral ecology of the "declining" frogs species in the Wet Tropics biogeographic region; conservation biology of the Eungella frogs; community ecology of anuran larvae in the savanna woodlands of the Townsville region. Teaching Activities include: lecturing in 3rd year Zoology subjects and supervision of undergraduate and postgraduate students working on amphibians and reptiles.

1993 Postdoctoral Research Fellow / Part-time Lecturer: Department of Zoology, James Cook University, CSIRO Cane Toad Project. Research activities include: The influence of Cane Toads on amphibian community ecology in Australia. The influence of habitat modification on Cane Toads. Keelback Snake and Cane Toad interactions. Conservation biology of the Eungella frogs. The influence of climate on the decline of Taudactylus acutirostris in the Wet Tropics. Teaching Activities include: lecturing in 3rd year Zoology subjects and supervision of undergraduate and postgraduate students working on amphibians and reptiles. (February – December).

1991-1992 Postdoctoral Fellowship: C.S.I.R.O. Division of Wildlife and Ecology.

Research Leader and Principal Scientist - Cane Toad Project, Venezuela. Responsible for the administration and research of seven staff at the Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Cientificas, Venezuela. March 1991 - December 1992.

Research Assistant to Dr M. J. Littlejohn: Dept. Zoology, The University of Melbourne (Amphibian Ecology). April 1990 - March 1991.

1989-1990 Research Consultant: Dept. Conservation Forests and Lands, Victoria. Assessed the status of the spotted tree-frog (Litoria spenceri) in the Wongungarra River, East Gippsland, Victoria. December 1989 - January 1990.

1988-1989 Research Assistant to Dr I. Poiner and Dr C. Catterall: CSIRO Marine Lab, Cleveland / Griffith University, Nathan, Brisbane (Ecology of marine molluscs). March 1988 - August 1989.

1985-1987 Postgraduate research with Amazonian herpetofauna, Manaus, Brasil. January 1985 - November 1987.

1985-1987 Research Assistant to Dr W.E. Magnusson: INPA / University of Amazonas, Manaus, Amazonas, Brasil (Crocodilian Ecology and Management Biology). January 1985 - November 1987.

1984 Research Assistant to Dr W. Robertson: Everglades National Park, Florida, USA. Osprey, Bald Eagle and wading bird population ecology. Florida panther (Felis concolor) population estimates. January - May, 1984.

1983 Biological Aid (fisheries): US Fish and Wildlife Service, Yellowstone N.P., Wyoming, USA. Research to facilitate the monitoring and management of the Cuthroat Trout fishery. June - October 1983.

1980-1983 Ranger: Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service. Duties included: management and maintenance of camping and day use areas; building and vehicle maintenance; law enforcement; interpretation; management planning and supervision of staff. November 1980 to February 1983.

Research Funding

(1997 – present)

2008 RESEARCH AGREEMENT FKP. Acid Frog response to land use changes, hydrology and the emerging issue of climate change. $45,000

2008 Grant: Gold Coast City Council. Amphibian status in GCCC $20,000

2008 Industry Grant:Dreamworld. Frog Captive Husbandry Project. $35,000

2008 Industry Grant: Brisbane City Council. PPBio – Measuring, monitoring and modelling amphibian response to climate change at Karawatha Forest. $30,000

2008 GU Industry Collaborative Scheme: PPBio – Karawatha Frog Project. (SEQ Catchments) $5,000

2007 RESEARCH AGREEMENT FKP. Acid Frog response to land use changes, hydrology and the emerging issue of climate change. $70,000

2007-2008 CONSULTANCY: SMEC Mitigation and monitoring the impacts for the proposed Tugan Bypass in Qld. Hero $49,050

2007-2008 GU Industry Collaborative Scheme: PPBio – collaboration. ($10,000 GUICS, $20,000 SEQ Catchments, $30,000 BCC) $60,000

2006-2007 COMMONWEALTH WATER GRANT: Restoration of threatened frog habitat in drinking water catchment. Hero $49,334

2006 GREENING AUSTRALIA GRANT: Restoration of threatened frog habitat in drinking water catchment. Hero $ 40,000

2006 RESEARCH GRANT: Eppeley Foundation. Chytrid Biology in Eastern Australia. US $19,800 Hero, Kriger, Van Sluys & Daszak $27,000 2005 RESEARCH GRANT: Qld Environmental Protection Agency. The ecology, status, threats and conservation management of Wallum dependent frogs. Hero & Meyer $39,600

2005 RESEARCH GRANT: National Geographic US $10,000 "Ecology of Chytridiomycosis in Mid-Eastern Australia." Hero & Kriger. $12,647

2005 RESEARCH GRANT: Eppeley Foundation. Chytrid Biology in Eastern Australia. US $18,530 Hero & Kriger. $27,000

2004 RESEARCH GRANT:

GU Industry Collaborative Scheme. Reproductive Biology and Captive husbandry of the critically endangered Kroombit Tinkerfrog (Taudactylus plioni). Hero & Meyer $24,000

2004 RESEARCH TENDER: Commonwealth Tender on Chytrid research. Joint submission as co-investigator – awarded to Prof. Speare at James Cook University Speare, Hero & $90,000

2004 RESEARCH DONATION: from Dreamworld for installation of a Donation Frog. Hero $2,000

2004 RESEARCH GRANT: Commonwealth Award following nomination by the Forster Primary School. Hero $4,000

2003 RESEARCH GRANT: DAPTF - IUCN. Population dynamics of the stream- dwelling species Eleutherodactylus cuneatus on La Grande Piedra, eastern Cuba. (Fong & Hero) (1,000 British Pounds) $3,382

2002 GURD Comparative intraspecific population history and historical biogeography in three species of the genus Mixophyes in southeast Queensland. Hero & Hughes $22,095

2002-2006 Research Grant: Gold Coast Airport Limited $10,000 / year for 5 years. Hero & Phillips $50,000

2001 CONSULTANCY: PPK Mitigation and monitoring the impacts on herpetofauna for the proposed Tugan Bypass in Qld. Hero $3,000

2001 RESEARCH GRANT: DAPTF - IUCN. Correlates of extinction proneness in South African frogs. (Henderson, Cunningham & Hero) (US $2,080) $4,160

2001 RESEARCH CONSULTANCY: Environment Australia. Species Profile and Threats Database for Frog Species. Hero $20,625

2001 CONSULTANCY: IUCN GAA - Amphibian profiles. Hero $6,000 2001 CONSULTANCY: IUCN Global Amphibian Assessment workshop. Hero $15,000

2000 Small ARC Research Funds GUGC, Funding for establishing an amphibian research program. Hero $4,097

2000 Community Service Project Grant (Griffith University) Collaborative project with the Kombumerri Tribe- traditional Gold Coast Landowners. Hero $6,550

2000 NHT GRANT: Gold Coast City Council & GUGC. Protecting and restoring threatened habitat and species in Loders Creek catchment. $20,000

2000 RESEARCH CONSULTANCY: Queensland Main Roads Dept. Environmental Assessment of impacts expected from the proposed Tugan Bypass in Qld. Hero & Phillips $25,369

2000 RESEARCH CONSULTANCY: Queensland Main Roads Dept. Extension of Assessment of impacts expected from the proposed Tugan Bypass in NSW. Hero & Phillips $3,438

2000 RESEARCH CONSULTANCY: Queensland Main Roads Dept. Environmental Assessment of impacts expected from the proposed Tugan Bypass in NSW. Hero & Phillips $39,600

2000 RESEARCH GRANT: Gold Coast City Council. The Effect of Habitat Isolation & Fragmentation on Fauna Diversity. Hero & Wild $ 34,000

2000 Brisbane City Council Environment Grant. Brisbane frog survey. Queensland Frog Society & Griffith University Bird & Hero $10,700

2000 CONSULTANCY: Brisbane City Council: Management Plan for Karawatha Forest Park. November 1999. Hero $6,000

1999/2000 Infrastructure Grant GUGC (J. Warnken , J.-M. Hero et al) Funding for collaborative research equipment. $13,500

1999/2000 Infrastructure Grant GU (J. Browning, J.-M. Hero et al) Funding for collaborative research Microvascular Laboratory equipment. $16,500

1999/2000 ARC- Margaret Middleton Fund – National Academy of Science. Hero, J.-M., C. Streatfeild & B. Dadds. $10,000

1999 Community Service Project Grant (Griffith University) Publication of a book entitled "Wet forest frogs of South east Queensland". $6,000

1999 Peter Rankin Trust Fund for Herpetology – Australian Museum (awarded to honours student – L.P. Shoo) $700 1999 Private Donations (3 members of Qld Frog Society) Funding for GUGC Endangered Frog Research Centre $200

1999 Research CONSULTANCY: Expert Witness for Brisbane City Council Legal Service: Assessment of Herpetofauna in Karawatha Forest Park. Aug.1999. $14,600

1999 Queensland Frog Society Funding for 1999 Frog Radio-tracking. Support Funding Aug. 1999 $1,000

1999 Research CONSULTANCY: Expert Witness for Brisbane City Council Legal Service: Ecological Assessment of Karawatha Forest Park. March 1999 $20,700

1999 Queensland Frog Society Funding for 1999 Frog Radio-tracking. Support Funding May 1999 $500

1999 Jenny Holdway Personal Donation - Qld Frog Society member Funding for 1999 Frog Radio-tracking. Support Funding $300

1998 Society for Restoring Australian Native Amphibia (RANA) Funding for 1998 Frog Search. Support Funding $1,000

1998 Bilateral Science & Technology Collaboration Program Funding for Overseas Travel - International Science & Technology Program. $4,300

1998 Donation: Dr Linda Mealey, University of Queensland Funding for February 1998 Frog Search $2,200

1997 Restoring Australian Native Amphibia Funding for 1997 Frog Search. Support Funding $1,000

1997 Publications GUGC Funding for production of books etc. Support Funding $1,000

1997 Student Scholarships GUGC Funding for students: Craig Streatfeild & Luke Shoo $2,000

1997 Wildlife Research Setup Funds GUGC Funding for establishing a research laboratory. $10,000

1997 Wildlife Research Infrastructure Grant GUGC (+ Dr K. Higginbottom) Funding for establishing a research in vertebrate ecology. $14,832

Pre 2007

1994 - 1996 Wet Tropics Management Authority: Principal Investigator: Biology and Conservation of Declining Rainforest Frogs Postdoctoral Fellowship $36,000 / year Research Funds $10,000 / year. $138,000 1994 - 1996 Australian Nature Conservation Agency - Qld Dept. of Environment and Heritage. Principal Investigator: Community Ecology of the Eungella Stream-Dwelling Frogs. $94,727

1994 - 1996 Australian Research Council Minor Grant Principal Investigator: Community Ecology of Anuran Assemblages. ($ 15,000 /year) $45,000

1994-1996 C.R.C. for Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management Co-investigator: Ecology of Threatened and Potentially Threatened Rainforest Frogs. $8,000

1996 Wet tropics Management Authority: Support funding for Missing Frog Poster. $1,670

1995 Wet tropics Management Authority: Support Funding for the November 1995 Frog Search. $1,500

1995 NatureSearch, Queensland Dept. of Environment and Heritage. Funding for preparation of audio cassette Frog Calls of North-eastern Queensland. $2,000

1995 Australian Geographic Society Coordinator: June 1995 Missing Frog Search. $2,000

1994-1995 Dept. Zoology, James Cook University Principal Investigators A. Thomas and J.-M. Hero: Frog Toolkit: An educational package including poster, audio cassette and computer software $6,000

1994 Wet tropics Management Authority: Funding for the 1994 Frog Search, WT Frog Guide and the audio cassette Frog Calls of North-eastern Queensland $2,500

1994 Wildlife Preservation Society of North Queensland Funding for preparation of audio cassette Frog Calls of North-eastern Queensland. $ 500

1994 Australian Geographic Society. 1994 Missing Frog Search $1,000

1994 Freddo Frog (Cadbury-Schweppes). 1994 Missing Frog Search $1000

1994 Queensland Frog Trust. Audio cassette: Frog Calls of North-eastern Queensland. $ 500

1994 Australian Nature Conservation Agency / Qld Dept. Environment Co-investigator: A survey to determine the status of the "rare" Taudactylus pleione. $3,150

Total funds received

1994-1996 $336,379 Unsuccessful grants 2001 – 2006

2003 RESEARCH GRANT Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Bonn, Germany. The Utility of Genetic Markers for Resolving Mesozoic Phylogenetic Events: A Case Study in Frogs. (A. Haas, J.-M. Hero, et al.) $30,000 Not successful

2006 ARC LINKAGE GRANT: Reproductive biology and captive husbandry of the critically endangered Kroombit tinkerfrog. Not successful

2006 Ian Potter Foundation

2006 TSN Grant

2006 Hermon Slade Foundation

Publications / Books

Hoskin, C. & J.-M. Hero. 2008. Rainforest Frogs of the Wet Tropics (between Townsville and Cooktown). Griffith University. 96pp.

Meyer, E., H.B. Hines & J.-M. Hero. 2001. Wet Forest Frogs of South-east Queensland. Griffith University. 57pp. Winner Bronze Queensland Printing Industry Craftsmanship Award (2001)

Hero, J.-M. & S. Fickling 1994. A Guide to Stream-dwelling Frogs of the Wet Tropics Rainforests. 28 pp. James Cook University Press, Townsville. (reprinted in 1997).

Hero, J.-M., M. J. Littlejohn & G. Marantelli. 1991. Frogwatch Field Guide to Victorian Frogs. 108 pp. Victorian Department of Conservation & Environment, Melbourne, Australia.

Book Chapters

Hero J.-M. C. Morrison, J. Chanson, S. Stuart, and N. A. Cox. in press. Phylogenetic correlates of extinction risk in amphibians. Chapter 19 in Amphibian Biology. Volume 10: Conservation of amphibians. (Eds) H. Heatwole & J. W. Wilkinson. Surrey Beatty & Sons, NSW. in press

Morrison, C. & J.-M. Hero. in press. Geographic correlates of extinction risk in amphibians. Chapter 20 in Amphibian Biology. Volume 10: Conservation of amphibians. (Eds) H. Heatwole & J. W. Wilkinson. Surrey Beatty & Sons, NSW. in press

Hero J.-M. and C. Morrison. in press. Life History correlates of extinction risk in amphibians. Chapter 21 in Amphibian Biology. Volume 10: Conservation of amphibians. (Eds) H. Heatwole & J. W. Wilkinson. Surrey Beatty & Sons, NSW. in press

Hero J.-M. and M. Van Sluys. in press. Final Chapter & Overview of Conservation of Amphibians. Chapter 19 in Amphibian Biology. Volume 10: Conservation of amphibians. (Eds) H. Heatwole & J. W. Wilkinson. Surrey Beatty & Sons, NSW. in press Hero J.-M., S. Richards, R. Alford, A. Allison, P. Bishop, R. Günther, D. Iskandar, F. Kraus, F. Lemckert, J. Menzies, D. Roberts, M. Tyler 2008. Amphibians of the Australasian Region. Chapter 6, pp 65-70 in Threatened Amphibians of the World. Lynx Ediciones (www.hbw.com).

Hero, J.-M. and K. M. Kriger. 2008. Threats to Amphibians in Tropical regions. Chapter XX in EOLSS UNESCO Tropical Zoology

Hero, J.-M. 2006. Frogs. Pages 165-170, 212, 222 &-223.in, L. Hutley, editor. A Guide to Lamington National Park. Lamington Natural History Association. Envirobook, N.S.W.

Hero, J.-M., & T. Ridgway. 2006. Declínio Global de Espécies. Chapter 3, Pages 53-90 in C. F. D. Rocha, H. G. Bergallo, M. Van Sluys e M. A. S. Alves (editors). Biologia da Conservação: Essências. Rima Press; Santa Paula, Brasil.

Hero, J.-M. 2005. Evaluating public cane toad eradication programs. Pages 38-41 in R. Taylor and G. Edwards (editors). A Review of the Impact and Control of Cane Toads in Australia with Recommendations for Future Research and Management Approaches. A Report to the Vertebrate Pests Committee from the National Cane Toad Taskforce, Australian Commonwealth Government. June 2005 ISBN: 0724548629

Hero, J.-M., M. Stoneham, P. Nanjappa & M. Lannoo. 2004. Bufo marinus. Pages 417- 422. in M. J. Lannoo, editor. Amphibian Declines: Conservation Status of United States Species. Volume 2: Species Accounts. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Hero, J.-M. and L. Shoo. 2003. Conservation of amphibians in the Old World tropics: defining unique problems associated with regional fauna. in R. D. Semlitsch, editor. Amphibian Conservation. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Chapt. 6. Pp: 70-84.

Kutt, A. S., J.E. Kemp, K.R. McDonald, Y. Williams, S.E. Williams, H. Hines, J.-M. Hero & G. Torr. 2003. Vertebrate fauna assemblage patterns in White Mountains National Park and its relationship to the Desert Uplands bioregion, central-north Queensland. Pp. 47-74 in Comben, L., T. Westacott & K. Berg. (eds) White Mountains Scientific Study Report. Royal Geographical Society of Queensland. Milton, Qld.

Gillespie, G. R. and J.-M. Hero. 1999. Potential impacts of introduced fish and fish translocations on Australian amphibians. Pages131-144 in A. Campbell, editor. Declines and Disappearances of Australian Frogs. Environment Australia, Canberra.

C1. Refereed publications (monograph)

1 Hero, J.-M. 1990. An illustrated key to aquatic tadpoles occurring in the Central Amazon rainforest, Manaus, Amazonas, Brasil. Amazoniana 11(2):201-262.

C1. Refereed publications / international journals Hero, Jean-Marc, J. Guy Castley, Mikalah Malone, Ben Lawson & William E. Magnusson. (2009). Long-term ecological research in Australia: innovative approaches for future benefits. Australian Zoologist. In press

* Van Sluys, M., Kriger, K.M. A. D. Phillott, R. Campbell, L. F. Skerratt and Hero, J.-M. 2008. High-temperature storage of samples compromises PCR detection of amphibian chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis DNA. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. 81: 93–97. C ranked journal.

* Kriger, K.M. and Hero, J.-M. 2008. Chytridiomycosis, amphibian extinctions, and lessons for the prevention of future panzootics. Ecohealth. in press. C ranked journal.

* Kriger, K.M. and Hero, J.-M. 2008. After the horse has bolted: a reply to Garner et. al (2008). Ecohealth. in press. C ranked journal.

* Kriger, K.M. and Hero, J.-M. 2008. Altitudinal distribution of chytrid (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) infection 1 in 2 subtropical Australian frogs. Austral Ecology. 33, 1022-1032. B ranked journal.

* Magnusson, W. E., F. Costa, A. Lima, F. Baccaro, R. Braga-Neto, R. Laerte Romero, M. Menin, J. Penha, J.-M. Hero and B. E. Lawson. 2008. A Program for Monitoring Biological Diversity in the Amazon: An Alternative Perspective to Threat-based Monitoring. Biotropica 40:409–411. B ranked journal.

Kriger, K. M. and Hero, J.-M. 2007. The chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis is non-randomly distributed across amphibian breeding habitats. Diversity and Distributions. 13: 781-788. A ranked journal.

Kriger, K.M., Pereoglou, F. and Hero, J.-M. 2007. Latitudinal variation in the prevalence and severity of chytrid (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) infection in Eastern Australia. Conservation Biology: 21(5):1280-1290. A ranked journal.

Hodgkison S., Hero J-M., Warnken J. 2007 The efficacy of small-scale conservation efforts as assessed on Australian golf courses. Biological Conservation. 135: 576-586. B ranked journal.

Koch, A.J. and Hero, J.-M. 2007. The relationship between environment conditions and activity of the Giant Barred Frog (Mixophyes iteratus) on the Coomera River, SE Queensland. Australian Journal of Zoology. 55: 89-95. B ranked journal.

Hodgkison S., Hero J-M., Warnken J. 2007 The conservation value of golf courses in a rapidly urbanising region of Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning 79:323-337. A ranked journal.

Kriger, K.M. and Hero, J.-M. 2007. Large-scale seasonal fluctuations in the prevalence and severity of chytridiomycosis. Journal of Zoology, London. 271: 352-359. B ranked journal. Hyatt. A.D., D.G Boyle, V. Olsen, D.B. Boyle L. Berger, R. Phillott, R. Campbell, D. Obendorf, A. Dalton, K. Kriger, M. Hero, H. Hines, F. Gleason and A Colling. 2007. Diagnostic assays and sampling protocols for the detection of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. 73:175-192. *** FEATURE ARTICLE *** C ranked journal.

Kriger, K.M., K. J. Ashton, H. B. Hines and Hero, J.-M. 2007. On the biological relevance of a singleBatrachochytrium dendrobatidis zoospore: a reply to Smith (2007). Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. 73:257-260. C ranked journal.

Hero, J.-M., C. Morrison, G. Gillespie, J.D. Roberts, D. Newell, E. Meyer, K. McDonald, F. Lemckert, M. Mahony, W. Osborne, H. Hines, S. Richards, C. Hoskin, J. Clarke, N. Doak & L. Shoo. 2006. Overview of the conservation status of Australian Frogs. Pacific Conservation Biology. 12: 313-320. C ranked journal.

Kriger, K.M. and Hero, J.-M. 2006a. Survivorship in Wild Frogs Infected with Chytridiomycosis. EcoHealth 3: 171-177. C ranked journal.

Kriger, K. M., J.-M. Hero & K. Ashton. 2006. Cost efficiency in the detection of Chytridiomycosis using PCR assay. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. 71: 149–154. C ranked journal.

Kriger, K. M., H. B. Hines, A.D. Hyatt, D.G. Boyle & J.-M. Hero. 2006. Techniques for Detecting Chytridiomycosis in Wild Frogs: Comparing Histological with Real-Time Taqman PCR. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. 71: 141–148. C ranked journal.

Schloegel, L., J.-M. Hero, L. Berger, R. Speare, K. McDonald & P. Daszak. 2006. The decline of the sharp-snouted day frog (Taudactylus acutirostris): The first documented case of extinction by infection in a free-ranging wildlife species? Ecohealth 3: 35-40. C ranked journal.

Shoo, L., S. Williams & J.-M. Hero. 2006. Detecting climate change induced range shifts: where and how should we be looking? Austral Ecology. 31: 22–29. B ranked journal.

Hero, J.-M., S. E. Williams & W. E. Magnusson. 2005. Ecological traits of declining amphibians in upland areas of eastern Australia. J Zoology Lond. 267, 221–232. B ranked journal.

Shoo, L., S. Williams & J.-M. Hero. 2005. Decoupling of trends in distribution area and population size of species with climate change. Global Change Biology. 11:1469-1476. A* ranked journal.

Shoo, L., S. Williams & J.-M. Hero. 2005. Climate warming and the rainforest birds of the Australian Wet Tropics: using abundance data as a sensitive predictor of change in total population size. Biological Conservation. 125:335-343. B ranked journal.

Rachowicz, L. J., J.-M. Hero, R. A. Alford, J. W. Taylor, J. A.T. Morgan, V. T. Vredenburg, J. P. Collins, C. J. Briggs. 2005. The novel and endemic pathogen hypotheses: competing explanations for the origin of emerging infectious diseases of wildlife. Conservation Biology 19:1441-1448. A ranked journal.

Kutt, A. S., J.E. Kemp, K.R. McDonald, Y. Williams, S.E. Williams, H. B. Hines, J.-M. Hero & G. Torr. 2005. Vertebrate fauna survey of White Mountains National Park in the Desert Uplands Bioregion, central-north Queensland. Australian Zoologist. 33:17-38. C ranked journal.

Hero J.-M. & C. Morrison. 2004. Frog Declines in Australia: global implications. The Herpetological Journal. 14:175-186. C ranked journal.

Hazell, D., J.-M. Hero and D. Lindenmayer & R. Cunningham. 2004. A comparison of constructed and natural habitat for frog conservation in an Australian agricultural landscape? Biological Conservation. 119:61-71. B ranked journal.

Morrison, C., J.-M. Hero & J. Browning. 2004. Altitudinal variation in the age at maturity, longevity and reproductive lifespan of anurans in subtropical Queensland. Herpetologica 60:34-44. B ranked journal.

Hodgkison, S. & J.-M. Hero. 2003. Seasonal, sexual and ontogenetic variations in the diet of the declining frogs, Litoria nannotis, L. rheocola and Nyctimystes dayi. Wildlife Research. 30:345-354. C ranked journal.

Morrison, C. & J.-M. Hero. 2003 – Geographic variation in the life-history characteristics of amphibians: a review. Journal of Animal Ecology. 72: 270-279. A ranked journal.

Morrison, C. & J.-M. Hero. 2003 – Altitudinal variation in growth and development rates of Litoria chloris and L. pearsoniana tadpoles in southeast Queensland, Australia. Journal of Herpetology. 37:59-64. B ranked journal.

Hero, J.-M., W. E. Magnusson, F. Duarte da Rocha & C. Catterall. 2001. Survival- strategies influence prey distributions and community diversity. Biotropica 33(1):131-141. B ranked journal.

**Winner 2002 Biotropica Award for Excellence in Tropical Biology (for best paper in 2001)**

Morrison, C., Hero J.-M. & W. Smith. 2001 Mate selection by female Litoria chloris and L. xanthomera: size doesn’t always matter. Austral Ecology 26(3):223-245. B ranked journal.

Hodgkison, S. & J.-M. Hero. 2001 Daily behaviour and microhabitat use of the Waterfall frog, Litoria nannotis, in Tully Gorge, eastern Australia. Journal of Herpetology. 35:116- 120. B ranked journal.

Williams, S. E. & J.-M. Hero. 2001 Multiple Determinants of Australian Tropical Frog Biodiversity. Biological Conservation. 98:1-10. B ranked journal. Zancola, B. J., C. Wild & J.-M. Hero. 2000 Inhibition of Ageratina riparia (Asteraceae) by native flora and fauna. Austral Ecology 25:563-569. B ranked journal.

Magnusson, W. E., A. Pimental Lima, J.-M. Hero & M. Carmozina de Araújo. 1999. The rise and fall of a population of Hyla boans: reproduction in a neotropical Gladiator Frog. Journal of Herpetology. 33:647-656. B ranked journal.

Hero, J.-M., C. Gascon & W. E. Magnusson. 1998. Direct and indirect effects of predation on tadpole community structure in the Amazon rainforest. Australian Journal of Ecology. 23: 474-482. . B ranked journal.

Williams, S. E. & J.-M. Hero. 1998. Rainforest frogs of the Australian Wet Tropics: guild classification and the ecological similarity of declining species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B. 265:597-602. “A” ranked journal.

Retallick, R.W.R. & J.-M. Hero. 1998. The tadpoles of Taudactylus eungellensis Liem and Hosmer and T. liemi Ingram (Anura; Myobatrachidae) and a key to the stream- dwelling tadpoles of the Eungella rainforest, in east-central Queensland, Australia. Journal of Herpetology. 32:304-309. B ranked journal.

Hero, J.-M. & G. R. Gillespie. 1997. Epidemic disease and amphibian declines in Australia. Conservation Biology 11:1-3. “A” ranked journal.

Lawler, K. & J.-M. Hero. 1997. Palatability of Bufo marinus tadpoles to a vertebrate fish predator decreases with development. Wildlife Research 24:327-334. B ranked journal.

Mijares-Urrutia, A. & J.-M. Hero. 1997. Los renacuajos de Hyla luteocellata e Hyla vigilans (Anura Hylidae) de Venezuela. Revista de Biologia Tropical. 44:585-592.

Evans, M., C. Yaber & J.-M. Hero. 1996. Factors influencing choice of breeding site by Bufo marinus in its natural habitat. Copeia 1996(4):904-912.

Hero, J.-M. & A. Mijares-Urrutia. 1995. The tadpole of Scinax rostrata (Anura, Hylidae). Journal of Herpetology 29(2):307-311.

Hero, J.-M., A. Lima & L. Joseph. 1992. Greater Yellow Headed Vultures feeding on a three-toed sloth in Amazonian rainforest. El Hornero (Argentina) 13(3):235.

Ramos, C.B.A., M. Van Sluys, J.-M. Hero & W.E. Magnusson. 1992. Influence of tadpole velocity on predation by odonate naiads. Journal of Herpetology 26(3):335-337.

Magnusson, W.E. & J.-M. Hero. 1991. Predation and the evolution of complex oviposition behaviour in Amazon rainforest frogs. Oecologia 86:310-318. A ranked journal.

Hero, J.-M. & U. Galatti. 1990. Characteristics distinguishing Leptodactylus pentadactylus and L. knudseni in central Amazon rainforest. Journal of Herpetology 24(2):226-228. Magnusson, W. E., A. P. Lima, J.-M. Hero, T. M. Sanaiotti & M. Yamakoshi. 1990. Paleosuchus trigonatus Nests: Sources of heat and embryo sex ratios. Journal of Herpetology 24(4):397-400.

Hero, J.-M. 1989. A simple code for toe clipping anurans. Herpetological Review 20(3):66-67.

C1. Refereed publications / national journals (Australia)

Hero, J.-M. & S. Fickling. 1996. Reproductive Characteristics of Female Frogs from Mesic Habitats in Queensland. Queensland Museum Memoirs. 39(2):306.

Hero, J.-M., S. Fickling & R.W.R. Retallick. 1996. The tadpole of Litoria revelata Ingram, Corben and Hosmer, 1982 (Anura: Hylidae). Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 120:71-73.

Mitchell, D. Jones, A. & J.-M. Hero. 1995. Predation on the Cane Toad (Bufo marinus) by the Black Kite (Milvus migrans). Queensland Museum Memoirs 38(2):512.

Hero, J.-M., G. F. Watson & G. Gillespie 1995. The tadpole of Litoria spenceri (Anura, Hylidae). Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria. 107:39-43.

Hero, J.-M. & G. R. Gillespie. 1993. The tadpole of Litoria phyllochroa (Anura, Hylidae). Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria 105(1):31-38.

C3. Letter or note – published in a journal controlled by an editorial board.

Kriger, K.M. and Hero, J.-M. 2006b. COPHIXALUS ORNATUS (Ornate Nursery Frog).

CHYTRIDIOMYCOSIS. Herpetological Review. 37:443

Hero J-M, Hazell D. and Hodgkison S. 2005. Winners and losers: the impacts of modifying natural landscapes on amphibian and reptile assemblages in eastern Australia. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, (Published Abstract) 32: 219-232.

Hero, J.-M. 2005. Book Review: Statistics without Math by Magnusson, W. E. & G. Mourão. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. In press

Hero, J.-M. 2005. Book Review: Frogs of Australian by J. R. Turner. Quarterly Review of Biology. In press.

Hero, J.-M. C. Morrison, G. Gillespie, D. Roberts, P. Horner, D. Newell, E. Meyer, K. McDonald, F. Lemckert, M. Mahony, M. Tyler, W. Osborne, H. Hines, S. Richards, C. Hoskin, N. Doak and L. Shoo. 2004. Conservation Status of Australian Frogs. FROGLOG. 65:2-3.

Hero, J.-M. 2001. Assessing the Conservation Status of Australian Frogs. FROGLOG. 46:6. Hero, J.-M., B. Dadds, D. White & D. White 2000 New records of the “Vulnerable” Wallum Froglet in the Gold Coast Shire, Queensland. Ecological Management & Restoration. 1:74-75.

Harvey, M. A., Morrison, C. & Hero J.-M. 1999. LITORIA LESUEURI (Stony Creek Frog). PREDATION. Herpetological Review. 30:162-163.

Hero, J.-M., H. Hines, E. Meyer, C. Morrison, C. Streatfeild & L. Roberts. 1998. New records of “declining” frogs in Queensland, Australia (- February1998). Newsletter of the Declining Amphibian Population Taskforce (DAPTF). FROGLOG. October, 29: 1-4.

Hero, J.-M. 1998. Book Review: Amphibians in Decline: Canadian studies of a global problem. Herpetological Review. 29: 252-254.

Retallick, R.W.R. & J.-M. Hero. 1997. Litoria inermis: female initiation of amplexus. Herpetological Review. 28 (3):147.

Hero, J.-M. 1996. Corrections to identification of photographs of endangered frogs of the wet tropics rainforest. Herpetofauna. 26:32

Hero, J.-M. & W.E. Magnusson. 1987. Leptophus ahaetulla FOOD. Herpetological Review 18(1):16

Hero, J.-M. & Angelo dos Santos. 1987. Eunectes murinus REPRODUCTION. Herpetological Review 18(2):36

E1. Conference publication - full written paper - refereed

Rudkin, K. C., J. Kirkwood, J.-M. Hero & M. Arthur. 2003. A preliminary assessment of two north Queensland estuaries containing “no-take” fish reserves; quantifying the relative abundance and length distributions of target species. APAC Proceedings: Aquatic protected areas: what works best and how do we know? Australian Society for Fish Biology. North Beach W. A. 500-510.

Hero, J.-M., H. Hines, E. Meyer, C. Morrison, & C. Streatfeild. 2002. New records of “declining” frogs in Queensland, Australia (- April 1999). Pp 23-28. in R. Natrass, editor. 'Frogs in the Community' - Proceedings of the Brisbane Conference 13-14 Feb. 1999. Queensland Frog Society Inc.

Hodgkison, S. & Hero J.-M. 2002. Seasonal behaviour of Litoria nannotis, L. rheocola & Nyctimystes dayi in Tully Gorge, north Queensland, Australia. Pp 29-39. in R. Natrass, editor. 'Frogs in the Community' - Proceedings of the Brisbane Conference 13-14 Feb. 1999. Queensland Frog Society Inc.

Morrison, C. & Hero J.-M. 2002 Geographical variation in life history characteristics of Amphibians in mid-eastern Australia: reproductive traits. Pp 40-48. in R. Natrass, editor. 'Frogs in the Community' - Proceedings of the Brisbane Conference 13-14 Feb. 1999. Queensland Frog Society Inc. Magnusson, W.E. & J.-M. Hero. 1990. Diagnosis of sex of live hatchling Paleosuchus trigonatus by direct observation of the gonads. pp. 33-37. In Proceedings of the 9th. Working Meeting of the Crocodile Specialist Group, IUCN - The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland. Vol.2: 380p.

Manuscripts in review (submitted for publication)

Hero, J.-M., N. Hamada & L. P. Shoo. in press. Reproductive and Population Ecology of Four Species of Phyllomedusa in the Central Amazonian Rainforest. Acta Amazonica. Accepted 18 April 2005

Smith W. P., J.-M. Hero, C. Morrison & R. Rowe. in review. Phonotaxis by female orange- thighed frogs, Litoria xanthomera (Anura, Hylidae). Australian Zoologist.

Van Sluys, M., Kriger, K.M. and Hero, J.-M. in review. Effects of Heat on the Viability of Swabs Used To Sample Wild Frogs for Chytridiomycosis. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms.

Murray, N. J., P. P. Shaw, D. Jones and J.-M. Hero in review Foraging behaviour and success of Australian White Ibis in an urban environment. Waterbirds submitted August 2006

Fong, A. G., R. Viña, I. Bignotte-Giró and J.-M. Hero. Population Ecology of the Stream- Dwelling Frog Eleutherodactylus cuneatus on La Gran Piedra, Eastern Cuba

Shoo, L. & J.-M. Hero. in review Colour change in Larval Bufo marinus: Response to Variations in Light and Background. Journal of Herpetology.

Shoo, L., J.-M. Hero & H. B. Hines. in review Conservation and distribution of the Giant Barred-frog and Fleay's Barred-frog in south-eastern Queensland. Wildlife Research.

Non-Refereed Publications (Articles & Technical reports)

Speare R, Skerratt L, Berger L, Hines H, Hyatt AD, Mendez D, McDonald KR, Hero J-M, Marantelli G, Muller R, Alford R, Woods R. (2005). A project that designs and trials a pilot survey to map the distribution of chyridomycosis (caused by the amphibian chytrid fungus) in Australian frogs. Final report for project ID 44381 (tender 63/2003) to the Australian Government

Department of the Environment and Heritage.

Hero, J.-M. 2005. Evaluating public Cane Toad eradication programs. Pages 38-41 in R. Taylor & G. Edwards (editors) A review of the impact and control of Cane Toads in Australia with recommendations for Future research and Management Approaches. A report to the Vertebrate Pests Committee from the National Cane Toad Taskforce. June 2005.

Meyer, E., J-M. Hero, Shoo L. & B. Lewis. 2005. Recovery Plan for the Wallum Sedgefrog and other Wallum-dependent Frog Species 2005-2009. Report to Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Brisbane. Denny, C., C. Morley, W. L. Chadderton & J.-M. Hero. 2005 Cane Toads and Invasive Mammal Eradication on Viwa Island, Fiji: Action Plan. Cooperative Islands Initiative.

Meyer, E. and Hero, J-M. 2004. Draft Captive Husbandry Plan for the Critically Endangered Kroombit Tinkerfrog Taudactylus pleione. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Brisbane.

Morley, C. M. Ambrose & J.-M. Hero. 2004 Eradicating Cane Toads (Bufo marinus) and Pacific Rats (Rattus exulans) from Viwa Island, Fiji. 25 pp. Final Report to Conservation International.

Hero, J.-M., S. Phillips & L. Shoo. 2001 Survey for Reptiles, Amphibians and Mammals inhabiting the northern section of the proposed Tugun by-pass. Unpublished Report to Queensland Department of Main Roads. February, 2001.

Hero, J.-M., S. Phillips & L. Shoo. 2000 Survey of Coastal Lowlands Associated with the Proposed Tugun by-pass (C4 Option). 39 p. Unpublished Report to Queensland Department of Main Roads. April, 2000.

Hero, J.-M. & L. Shoo. 2000 Preliminary Herpetological survey and assessment of Lots 1 & 2 on RP816911 and Lot 61 on S131880 – Mt Crosby. 9 p. Unpublished Report to James Warren Associates.

Hero, J.-M. 2000 Management Plan to Protect the Diversity of Amphibians within Karawatha Forest Park. 41 p. Unpublished report to Brisbane City Council. 31 March 2000.

Hero, J.-M. 1999 Significance of Amphibians and Reptiles found in lots 1 & 2, RP 107138 Yeerongpilly, within Karawatha Forest Park. Unpublished Report to Brisbane City Council. 29 September, 1999. 32 p. + Figures & Appendices.

Hero, J.-M. 1999 Ecological Assessment of lots 1 & 2, RP 107138 Yeerongpilly, within Karawatha Forest Park. Unpublished Report to Brisbane City Council. 23 July 1999. 38 p + figures and appendices.

Streatfeild & J.-M. Hero. 1999. Radio-tracking the Endangered Giant Barred River Frog and the common Great Barred River Frog. FROGSHEET Spring 1999:8.

Hero, J.-M. 1997. Frog Declines. Nature Australia Magazine. 25:4.

Retallick, R. W. R. R., J.-M. Hero & R. Alford. 1997. Ecology of the stream-dwelling Amphibians of Eungella National Park. Internal Report to Australian Nature Conservation Agency (ANCA) & the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service. 40p

Hero, J.-M. 1996. Final Research Fellowship Report to Wet Tropics Management Authority.

Hero, J.-M. 1996. Where are Queensland's Missing Frogs ? Wildlife Australia Magazine. 33: 8-13. Hero, J.-M. M. Trenerry, G. Werren, A. Dennis, S.J. Richards, R. Retallick & David Stewart. 1995 Frog Calls of North-east Queensland: Audio Cassette. Produced by J.-M. Hero; Department of Zoology, James Cook University.

Retallick, R. & J.-M. Hero. 1994 Predation on an Eastern Waterdragon (Physignathus lesueuri) by a Common Brown Tree Snake (Boiga irregularis). Herpetofauna 24:47-48.

McNellie, M. & J.-M. Hero. 1994. Mission Amphibian: the search for the missing rainforest frogs of Eungella. Wildlife Australia Magazine. 31(4):22-23.

Hero, J.-M. 1994. Seed Dispersal by Sulphur-Crested Cockatoo. Wingspan. 15:40.

Hero, J.-M.. 1993. Bufo Research in Townsville: Annual Progress Report to CSIRO. September, 1993

Hero, J.-M., M. Yaber, M. Lampo & V. Medialdea. 1992. Bufo Research in Venezuela: Annual Progress Report to CSIRO. September, 1992

Watson, G.F., M.J. Littlejohn, J.-M. Hero & P. Robertson. 1991. Conservation status, ecology and management of the Spotted Tree Frog (Litoria spenceri). Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research - Technical Report Series, Department of Conservation and Environment, Victoria. Report No. 116:40 pp.

Hero, J.-M. 1991. A Froggy Forecast: The Search for Victoria's Rarest Tree Frog. Wildlife Australia Magazine. 28, 14-15.

Pittock, J. & J.-M. Hero. 1991. Victoria's Wild Alpine River (and The Spotted Tree Frog) Wild Magazine. Spring, 42:40-43.

Hero, J.-M. 1990. The status of the Spotted Tree Frog (Litoria spenceri) in the Mt. Murray Forest Block. Unpublished Scientific Report to the Victorian Department of Conservation Forests and Lands, March 1990. 30 p.

Hero, J.-M., G. Miller & P. Rogers. 1980. The herbicide 2,4,5-T and its alternatives. Queensland Conservation Council Publ. 19p.

Creative production

Hero, J.-M. 1999. Herpetological Research Activities at Griffith University Gold Coast. Australian Society of Herpetologists. Newsletter 39, January 1999: 48-49.

Hero, J.-M. 1996 POSTER: Where are Queensland's missing frogs ? Produced by: CRC TREM, WTMA and the Dept. of Zoology, James Cook University.

Hero, J.-M. and S. Fickling. 1993 POSTER: Lost in the Rainforest (The Mysterious Stream-Dwelling Frogs of the Eungella Region) Produced by: Dept. of Zoology, James Cook University.

James, D., J.-M. Hero, and G. Torr. 1993, handout. Working List Townsville Reptiles J-M. Hero. 1993, unpublished handouts.

„ Missing and Declining Frogs of Queensland

„ Conservation of Native Frogs: How you can help.

Hero, J.-M. and S. J. Richards. 1993, unpublished handout. Checklist and Key to the Frogs of the Townsville Region

World Wide Web publications

Species profiles for 210 species of Australian Frogs on AmphibiaWeb. 2002. Administered through the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at the University of California, Berkeley: http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/aw/

Publications in preparation (draft manuscripts prepared)

Hero, J.-M., C. Streatfeild & A. J. Koch. in review A safe, temporary method for attaching radio-transmitters to frogs. Herpetological Review.

Fickling, S. & J.-M. Hero in review. Fish predation and the distribution of frogs and tadpoles in rainforest streams in Tully Gorge, northeastern Australia. Austral Ecology

Hero J.-M. in preparation. Integrated Procedures; Where Do We Go From Here? Chapter 25 in Amphibian Biology. Volume 10: Conservation of amphibians. (Eds) H. Heatwole & J. W. Wilkinson.

Hero J.-M. & C. Morrison. in review. Life history correlates of extinction risk in amphibians. Chapter 17 in Amphibian Biology. Volume 10: Conservation of amphibians. (Eds) H. Heatwole & J. W. Wilkinson.

Hero, J.-M., K. Lawler & S. J. Richards. in preparation A guide to frogs of the coastal lowlands between Townsville and Cairns.

Hero J.-M. in preparation. Ecology and Conservation: the phenology of Litoria nannotis, L. rheocola, L. genimaculata and Nyctimystes dayi in north Queensland. Australian Journal of Zoology.

Refereeing of Scientific Research

Annually referee papers for: Biological Conservation, Conservation Biology, Diversity & Distributions, Ecology, Oecologia, Biotropica, Austral Ecology, Copeia, Ecotropicos, Ecological Modelling, Journal of Herpetology, Journal of Tropical Ecology, Herpetological Review, Queensland Museum Memoirs, Herpetofauna, Australian Geographic Magazine.

ARC Grant Proposals: National

PhD and MSc thesis examiner: Charles Darwin University (2007). MSc thesis examiner: University of South Pacific (2006).

MSc thesis examiner: University of Canberra (1995, 2005).

PhD thesis examiner: Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas

da Amazonia / Universidade do Amazonia, Brasil. 2006.

PhD thesis examiner: University of Newcastle 2006.

ARC Small Grant Proposals: Southern Cross University 2005.

Reviewer of proposals for the NSW Scientific Committee 2001

Reviewer of proposals for the Commonwealth Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2001

Reviewer of proposals for the South African National Research Foundation

Invited Seminars/Workshops

July 2008 Invited Speaker: Jean-Marc Hero.Zoological Society of London.

June 2005 Invited Speaker: Jean-Marc Hero. World Congress of Herpetology.

2004 Invited Speaker: Jean-Marc Hero, Donna Hazell, Simon Hodgkison & Damian White. Winners and losers. Amphibian and reptile conservation in human-dominated landscapes: Patterns, processes, and solutions. Annual Meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology, Columbia University, New York City, USA

June 2003 Invited Speaker: Population Dynamics of Amphibians. Symposium at American Society for Icthyologists and Herpetologists. Manaus Brasil.

July 2002 Invited Speaker: Managing Amphibian Declines in Australia: Global implications. Symposium on 'Global Amphibian Declines: is Current Research Meeting Conservation Needs?' Society for Conservation Biology, Canterbury UK 14-19.

July 2001 Invited Speaker: The "art" of the Postgraduate Student: Combining Science with Communication. The Ecology and Evolution Postgraduate Symposium, Griffith University.

May 2001 Guest Speaker: The "art" of the Postgraduate Student: Combining Science with Communication. Australian Aquatic Ecology Postgraduate Workshop.

November 1997 Invited speaker: National Threatened Frog Workshop Canberra January 1997 Invited speaker: Universidad do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ). Departamento de Ecologia.

Invited speaker: Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazonia, Manaus Amazonas Brasil. Seminario da Amazonia 97.

August 1996 Invited speaker & participant: Population and Habitat Viability Assessment Workshop. Dept. Natural resources & Environment, Arthur Rylah Institute, Melbourne.

July 1996 Invited speaker: Wildlife Preservation Society of North Queensland.

February 1996 Invited speaker: CRC- Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management; Public Seminar. Cairns, February 1996.

February 1996 Invited speaker: Wet Tropics Management Authority, Public Seminar.

February 1996 Invited speaker: CSIRO Atherton, Seminar Series.

December 1995 Invited speaker: Centre for Conservation Biology, University of Queensland.

September 1995 Invited speaker: Victorian Frog Group; Public Seminar.

Invited speaker: Brisbane Frog Group; Public Seminar.

Invited speaker: Wildlife Preservation Society of North Queensland,.

November 3 1992 Invited speaker: Department of Biology, University of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico Nov. 3, 1992.

March 1990 Invited speaker: Griffith University, Australia. Ecology Discussion Group, 10th March 1990.

June 1991 Invited speaker: Universidad Simon Bolivar, Caracas, Venezuela.

July 1991 Invited speaker: Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas, Venezuela.

August 1990 Invited speaker: Department of Zoology, The University of Melbourne, Victoria.

August 1989 Invited speaker: Brisbane Ecology Get-Together, Q.U.T., Brisbane, Australia.

March 1988 Invited speaker: Griffith University, Australia. Ecology Discussion Group.

April 1988 Invited speaker: Griffith University, Australia. Division Seminar Series May 1988 Invited speaker: Queensland Museum, Brisbane, Australia.

June 1988 Invited speaker: Griffith University, Australia. Ecology Discussion Group

August 1988 Invited speaker: CSIRO Marine Laboratories, Cleveland, Australia.

October 1988 Invited speaker: University of Papua New Guinea, Port Moresby, P.N.G

August 1987 Invited speaker: Kansas University Museum of Natural History, Kansas, USA.

Invited speaker: Smithsonian Research Institute, Washington DC, USA.

Invited speaker: South Florida Research Centre, Everglades N. P., USA.

Conference Presentations

(Papers Presented at national or international meetings. All have published abstracts.)

Hero, J.-M., G. Castley, M. Malone & S. Butler. 2008. APAC: Australian Protected Areas Conference.

Hero & Kriger. 2008. Chytrid Epidemics where do we go from here ? 6WCH Manaus, Brasil

Bauer, U., M. Mortimer, S. Carter, J.-M. Hero and J. Müller, 2008 PDMS passive samplers versus fish: a field study to determine pesticide concentrations. 5th SETAC World Congress, Aug 2008 Sydney, Australia.

Hero, J.-M., and B. Lawson 2007. Program For Planned Biodiversity Studies (PPBio): A Model For Effective And Efficient Long-term Ecological Research. ESA.

Butler 2007. Association of mesoscale vegetation patterns with soil, topography and fire history at PPBio Karawatha Forest. ESA

Hero, J.-M. PPBio Program for Planned Biodiversity Studies. Biodiversity Extinction Crisis. Sydney July 2007.

Kriger, K. M. & J.-M. Hero, 2007. The ubiquity of the chytrid fungus and the futility of fighting it: Lessons for the prevention of future wildlife panzootics. Amphibian Conservation Conference; Washington, USA July 2007.

Kriger, K. M. & J.-M. Hero, Breeding Habitat, Altitude and Chytridiomycosis. SSAR Conference; St Lois, USA July 2007.

Mijares-Urrutia, J. Hughes & J,-M. Hero. Conservation genetics …… SSAR Conference; St Lois, USA July 2007 Hero, J.-M. PPBio Program for Planned Biodiversity Studies. Rainforest Forum Griffith University Brisbane. June 2007.

Hero J.-M., W. E. Magnusson & B. E. Lawson. POSTER: Programme for planned biodiversity studies: ecologically robust and cost-effective site-based ecological data for multi-purpose research and management. IALE International Association of Landscape Ecology July 2007.

Kriger, K. M. & J.-M. Hero, Ecological Society of Australia Conference; August 2006.

nd Bauer, U., B. Stephens, S. Carter, J. Hero, J. Müller. 2006. IPSW 2 International Passive Sampling Workshop and Symposium. Bratislava, Slovakia 3-6 May 2006. P. 36.

Shoo, L., S. Williams & J.-M. Hero. 2006. Predicting and detecting impacts of climate change on montane rainforest birds in the Australian wet tropics. In Global Change in Mountain Regions. Pp205-206.

Kriger, K. M. & J.-M. Hero, USA Society of Herpetologists Conference; July 2006

Doak, N. and J-M Hero Australian Society of Herpetologists Conference Healesville, VIC; April 2006.

Monique Van Sluys, D Vrcibradic, CEL Esbérard, MAS Alves, HG Bergallo, CFD Rocha and J-M Hero. Australian Society of Herpetologists Conference Healesville, VIC; April 2006. Sampling effort and richness estimates in a leaf litter frog community of an Atlantic Rainforest area, southeastern Brazil. Poster.

Kriger, K. M. & J.-M. Hero, Australian Society of Herpetologists Conference Healesville, VIC; April 2006 "Latitudinal and Temporal Variation in the Prevalence and Severity of Chytridiomycosis in Stoney Creek Treefrogs (Litoria lesueuri complex).

Kriger, K. M. & J.-M. Hero, Ecological Society of Australia Conference Brisbane, QLD; November 2005 "Temporal, Spatial and Inter-Specific Variability in Levels of Chytridiomycosis in Frogs of Southeast Queensland.”

Kriger, K. M. & J.-M. Hero, Joint Meeting of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists Tampa, Florida; July 2005 "Chytridiomycosis in Frogs of Southeast Queensland."

Australian Society of Herpetologists Conference Springbrook, QLD; February 2005 "Techniques for Detecting Chytridiomycosis in Wild Frogs: Comparing Histological with Real-Time Taqman PCR.”

Kriger, K. M., H. B. Hines, J.-M. Hero, S. Wapstra. Techniques for Detecting Chytridiomycosis in Wild Frogs: Comparing Histological with Real-Time Taqman PCR. Husbandry and Hygiene Conference, The Amphibian Research Centre, Melbourne. 11-14 December, 2004.

Skerratt, L., H. B. Hines, L. Berger, K. McDonald, R. Alford, D. Mendez, R. Muller, J.-M. Hero, A. Hyatt and R. Speare. Development of a mapping protocol for chytridiomycosis in Australian frog populations. Husbandry and Hygiene Conference, The Amphibian Research Centre, Melbourne. 11-14December, 2004.

Daszak, P., Cunningham, A..A., Patel, N.G., Schloegel, L. & Hero, J.-M. Extinction by infection: the underestimated role of pathogens in biodiversity loss. Ecological Society of America 1-6 August, 2004 Oregon, USA.

Hero, J–M., S. Hodgkison & D. Hazel. Winners and Losers: The impacts of modifying natural landscapes on amphibian & reptile assemblages in eastern Australia. Society for Conservation Biology. New York. 2004.

Hero, J.-M., L. Shoo & N. Hamada. Population dynamics of Amazonian frogs - why do we know so little ? Australian Society of Herpetologists. Darwin, December. 2003.

Ward, S. & J.-M. Hero. Reproductive phenology and population dynamics of Mixophyes iteratus in southeast Queensland. Australian Society of Herpetologists. Darwin, December. 2003.

Hopkins, M. & J.-M. Hero. Temporal and spatial distribution of breeding activity in an ‘acid’ frog community at Tugun, south east Queensland Australian Society of Herpetologists. Darwin, December. 2003.

Doak, N.C., Ponniah, M., Hines, H.B., Hughes, J.M., and J-M. Hero. 2003. Species status within the southern species of the genus Mixophyes. Australian Society of Herpetologists. Darwin, December. 2003.

Hero, J.-M. & N. Hamada. Population dynamics of Amazonian frogs - why do we know so little ? SSAR SSIH Joint Meetings. Manaus, Brazil July 2003

Doak, N.C. and J-M Hero. Hip Hop; Movement and activity in Fleays’ Barred Frog. Joint Meeting of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists. SSAR SSIH Joint Meetings. Manaus, Brazil July 2003.

White, D, & J.-M. Hero. The effect of habitat fragmentation, isolation and disturbance on faunal diversity of Melaleuca fragments on the Gold Coast. Consequences of Habitat Fragmentation Conference, Botanic Gardens Sydney. June. 2003

Hero, J.-M. Managing Amphibian Declines in Australia: Global implications. Queensland Frog Society Symposium. 20 October 2002.

Doak, N.C. and J-M Hero. Hip Hop; Movement and activity in Fleays’ Barred Frog. Queensland Frog Society Symposium. 20 October 2002.

Hero, J.-M. Managing Amphibian Declines in Australia: Global implications. Symposium on 'Global Amphibian Declines: is Current Research Meeting Conservation Needs?'. Society for Conservation Biology, Canterbury UK July, 2002.

Doak N. C. and J-M Hero. Movement and activity of Mixophyes fleayi. Australian Society of Herpetologists. Canberra. ACT 2002. Hero, J.-M. & L. Shoo. Amphibian Conservation: ecological characteristics and scientific globalisation. 4th World Congress of Herpetology, Sri Lanka, December 2001

Morrison, C. & J.-M. Hero. Influence of altitude on the population resilience of amphibians in southeast Queensland, Australia. 4th World Congress of Herpetology, Sri Lanka, December 2001

Morrison, C. & J.-M. Hero Altitudinal variation in tadpole growth and development rates. Australian Society of Herpetologists. Tasmania, February 2001.

Koch, A. & J.-M. Hero Designing efficient and effective monitoring techniques for a population of the endangered frog species Mixophyes iteratus. Australian Society of Herpetologists. Tasmania, February 2001.

Hero, J.-M. S. E. Williams & W. E. Magnusson. The Ecological Characteristics of Declining Frogs in Australia: Implications for Global Amphibian Declines. Getting the Jump! on amphibian diseases. Conference and Workshop. Cairns, Australia. August 2000.

Hero, J.-M. S. E. Williams & W. E. Magnusson. Global amphibian declines: using the Ecological Characteristics of Declining Amphibians as a tool for conservation ASIH Herpetological Conference, Mexico. June 2000.

Hero, J.-M. S. E. Williams & W. E. Magnusson. The Ecological Characteristics of Declining Frogs in Australia: Implications for Global Amphibian Declines. Fourth Asian Herpetological Conference, China. July, 2000.

Hero, J.-M. Managing the Cane Toad Invasion. Australian Society of Herpetologists Alice Springs 10-13 Dec. 1999.

C. Streatfield & Hero, J.-M. Spatial movements of the ENDANGERED Giant Barred River Frog (Mixophyes iteratus) and the common Great Barred River Frog (M. fasciolatus). Australian Society of Herpetologists Alice Springs 10-13 December 1999.

Shoo, L. Hero, J.-M. & H. B. Hines. Differences in macrohabitat associations among three species of Mixophyes (Anura: Myobatrachidae) in southeast Queensland. Australian Society of Herpetologists Alice Springs 10-13 December 1999.

Morrison, C., Hero, J.-M. & W. P. Smith Mate selection by female Litoria chloris and L. xanthomera: size doesn't always matter. Australian Society of Herpetologists Alice Springs 10-13 December 1999.

Hero, J.-M. Managing the Cane Toad Invasion. Australasian Wildlife Management Society. 12 th Annual Meeting & Conference. Darwin 1 Nov. – 3 Dec. 1999.

Nunan, D.; Lindenmayer, D.; Mackey, B.;Cunningham, R.; Hero, J.-M.; Donnelly, C. Farm dams as amphibian habitat in an agricultural landscape. Australasian Wildlife Management Society. 12 th Annual Meeting & Conference. Darwin 1 Nov. – 3 Dec. 1999. Shoo, L. P., J.-M. Hero and H. B. Hines. Partitioning of ecological space within the genus Mixophyes (Anura: Myobatrachidae) in southeast Queensland. Australasian Wildlife Management Society. 12 th Annual Meeting & Conference. Darwin 31 Nov. – 3 Dec. 1999.

Streatfeild, C. A. & J.-M. Hero. Spatial movements of the ENDANGERED Giant Barred River-frog (Mixophyes iteratus) and the common Great Barred River-frog (M. fasciolatus). Australasian Wildlife Management Society. 12 th Annual Meeting & Conference. Darwin 1 Nov. – 3 Dec. 1999.

Hero, J.-M. Ecology and Conservation: the phenology of Litoria nannotis, L. rheocola, L. genimaculata and Nyctimystes dayi in north Queensland. Queensland Frog Symposium. Brisbane 13-14 Feb. 1999.

Morrison, C. & J.-M. Hero. Geographic variation in life history characteristics of amphibians in mide-eastern Australia: reproductive traits. Queensland Frog Symposium. Brisbane 13-14 Feb. 1999.

Hero, J.-M. Global amphibian declines: using the Ecological Characteristics of Declining Amphibians as a tool for conservation. Society for Conservation Biology. Sydney: July 13- 16 1998.

Hero, J.-M. Ecological Correlates of Reproductive Traits in Australian Amphibians. The 25th Meeting of the Australian Society of Herpetologists. Atherton Qld. 5-8 Feb. 1998.

Hero, J.-M. and S. E. Williams. Ecological characteristics of declining amphibians: Are these frogs more susceptible to extinction ? Southern Connections Conference. Valdivia Chile 6-11 Jan. 1997.

Williams, S. E. and Hero, J.-M. Biodiversity and assemblage structure of the rainforest frogs of the Australian Wet Tropics. Southern Connections Conference. Valdivia Chile 6-11 Jan. 1997.

Hero, J.-M. and S. E. Williams. Ecological characteristics of declining amphibians: Are these frogs more susceptible to extinction ? The 24 th Meeting of the Australian Society of Herpetologists. W.A. 22-25 Sept. 1996.

Williams, S. E. and Hero, J.-M. Biodiversity and assemblege structure of the rainforest frogs of the Australian Wet Tropics: with implications for the declining frogs. The 24th Meeting of the Australian Society of Herpetologists. W.A. 22-25 Sept. 1996.

Fickling, S., J.-M. Hero & G. Ingram. Population dynamics of the Gastric Brooding Frog Rheobatrachus silus, a new look at the data. The 24 th Meeting of the Australian Society of Herpetologists. W.A. 22-25 Sept. 1996.

Yvette Buffett, J.-M. Hero & R. Alford. Prey survival strategies of tadpoles: does predation on tadpoles have the potential to influence frog assemblage structure ? The 24th Meeting of the Australian Society of Herpetologists. W.A. 22-25 Sept. 1996. Bolitho, E. & J.-M. Hero. Skeletochronology in the tropics. The 24 th Meeting of the Australian Society of Herpetologists. W.A. 22-25 Sept. 1996.

Marantelli, G., G. Gillespie & J.-M. Hero. The state of the ark: an assessment of husbandry knowledge for anurans. The 24 th Meeting of the Australian Society of Herpetologists. W.A. 22-25 Sept. 1996.

Oke, C., R. Crozier & J.-M. Hero. Using mtDNA sequence data towards the conservation of the endangered stream-dwelling frog, Taudactylus eungellensis. The 24 th Meeting of the Australian Society of Herpetologists. W.A. 22-25 Sept. 1996.

Hero, J.-M. and S. E. Williams. Ecological characteristics of declining amphibians: Are these frogs more susceptible to extinction ? World Heritage Tropical Forests Conference, Cairns 2-6 September, 1996.

Hero, J.-M. and S. E. Williams. Ecological characteristics of declining amphibians: Are these frogs more susceptible to extinction ? Ecological Society of Australia, Tasmania 9-12 July 1996.

Williams, S. E. and Hero, J.-M. Biodiversity and assemblage structure of the rainforest frogs of the Australian Wet Tropics: with implications for the declining frogs. Ecological Society of Australia, Tasmania 9-12 July 1996.

Hero, J-M., S. Fickling and Y. Buffett. Predation and prey survival strategies interact to influence prey community composition and species richness.

Ecological Society of Australia, Tas. 27-29 Sept. 1995.

Hero, J.-M. and S. Fickling. The influence of fish predation on the distribution and abundance of "declining" frogs (Litoria nannotis, L. rheocola and Nyctimystes dayi ) in the Tully Gorge. The 23 rd Meeting of the Australian Society of Herpetologists. Laurel Hill, N.S.W. 9-12 Feb. 1995.

Retallick, R. W. R. Population dynamics and life history patterns of the Eungella Torrent Frog (Taudactylus eungellensis) Liem and Hosmer (Anura: Myobatrachidae). The 23rd Meeting of the Australian Society of Herpetologists. Laurel Hill, N.S.W. 9-12 Feb. 1995.

Thomas, A. and J.-M. Hero. 1994. Frog Surveying Toolkit for North Queensland. CONSTAQ (The Conference of the Science Teachers' Association of Queensland) Townsville, September 19-21, 1994.

Hero, J.-M. and W. E. Magnusson. Bufo marinus and community ecology in Australia and South America. Second World Congress of Herpetology. Adelaide, Dec. 1993.

Evans, M., C.A. Ramos, C. Yaber, W. Seabrook and J.-M.Hero. Physico-chemical characteristics of breeding sites of Bufo marinus. Second World Congress of Herpetology. Adelaide, Dec. 1993. Church, A., G. Codina and J.-M. Hero. Keelback snake, cane toad and native frog interactions in north Queensland. Second World Congress of Herpetology. Adelaide, Dec. 1993.

Hero, J.-M. and N. Hamada. Reproductive ecology of four sympatric species of Phyllomedusa (Anura, Hylidae) in central Amazonia. Australian Society of Herpetologists. S.A. 22/23 Sept. 1990.

Hero, J.-M. and N. Hamada. Reproductive ecology of four sympatric species of Phyllomedusa (Anura, Hylidae) in central Amazonia. Joint annual meeting; Soc. Stud. Amph. Rept., Herp. League and Com. Herp.

Naci.: New Orleans, USA, 5-9 Aug. 1987 ?.

Magnusson, W.E. and J.-M. Hero. Surgery as a technique for descriminating sex in hatchlings. Crocodile Specialist Group Meeting. Lae, Papua New Guinea. 19-21 October, 1988.

Hero, J.-M. and W. E. Magnusson. Predation and the evolution of terrestrial oviposition behaviour in Amazon rainforest frogs. Australian Bicentennial Herpetological Conference. Brisbane, 17-20 August, 1988.

Hero, J.-M. and W. E. Magnusson. Predation palatability and the distribution of tadpoles in Amazon rainforest. Australian Bicentennial Herpetological Conference. Brisbane, 17-20 Aug. 1988.

Hamada, N. and J.-M. Hero. Ecologia de 3 especies de Phyllomedusa (Amphibia- Hylidae): distribucao no tempo e espaco de machos em area de reproducao. XV Congresso Brasileiro de Zoologia; Curitiba, Brasil. 31 Jan-5 Feb. 1988.

Galatti, U. and J.-M. Hero. The morphologic, acoustic and ecological separation of Leptodactylus pentadactylus and Leptodactylus knudseni. Joint annual meeting; Soc. Stud. Amph. Rept., Herp. League and Com. Herp. Naci.: Vera Cruz, Mexico, 9-15 Aug. 1987.

Souza, R.R. and J.-M. Hero. Influence of habitat on growth and the distribution of tadpoles. Joint annual meeting; Soc. Stud. Amph. Rept., Herp. League and Com. Herp. Naci.: Vera Cruz, Mexico, 9-15 Aug. 1987.

Magnusson, W.E. and J.-M. Hero. Predation by tadpoles and the evolution of complex oviposition behaviour in anurans. Joint annual meeting; Soc. Stud. Amph. Rept., Herp. League and Com. Herp. Naci.: Vera Cruz, Mexico, Aug. 1987.

Hero, J.-M. Canibalismo: uma hypotese sobre a funcao da bacia de ovos em Hyla boans, (Anura, Hylidae). XIV Congresso Brasileiro de Zoologia; Juiz de Fora, Brasil. 1-6 Feb. 1987. Van Sluys, M., C.B.A. Ramos, J.-M. Hero and W.E. Magnusson. Efeito do movimento na sobrevivencia de girinos. XIV Congresso Brasileiro de Zoologia; Juiz de Fora, Brasil. 1-6 Feb. 1987.

Hamada, N. and J.-M. Hero. Reproducao e dinamica espacial de tres especies simpaticas de Phyllomedusa (Hylidae, Amphibia). XIII Congresso Brasileiro de Zoologia; Cuiaba, Mato Grosso, Brasil. Feb. 1986.

Presentations to External Community Organisations 1997 – present

May 2007 Invited Speaker, Wildlife Protection Society of Qld

March 2007 Invited Speaker, Karawatha Forest Protection Society

Feb. 2007 Invited Speaker, Twin Towns District Garden Club

2006 Invited Speaker, GECKO: Gold Coast and Hinterland Environmental Group

2006 Invited Speaker, Loders Creek Catchment Group

April 2005 Invited Speaker, Save our Lakes and Heritage (SOLAH)

1998-2004 Invited Speaker, O’Reilleys Guesthouse Frog Week

2000-2005 Invited Speaker, Binna Burra Guesthouse Frog-week

Nov. 2004 Invited Speaker, Mary River Catchment, Frog Forum

October 2004 University representative, Merrimac High School Awards Night

June 2003 School Speaker, Lindisfarne Anglican School

24 Dec 2001 Invited Speaker, IUCN: Asia Regional Biodiversity Programme / Sri Lanka Country Office.

April 2000 Invited Speaker, Official Launch of Gold Coast Airport Kobakai Rejuvenation Project

18 Feb. 2000 Invited Speaker, Mt Tamborine Natural History Association

1, April 2000 Invited Speaker, RANA Restoring Australian Native Amphibians

11, Feb. 2000 Invited Speaker, DOE Mt Tamborine - Guanaba Gorge Proposal

13 Nov. 1999 Invited Speaker, Queensland Frog Society, Frog ID weekend, Mt Barney

13 Nov. 1999 Invited Speaker, Frog Day, Wildlife Preservation Society

4 Nov. 1999 University representative, Qld Dept. of Environment, QPWS, David Fleay Wildlife Park NatureSearch Launch 10 Oct. 1999 Invited Expert, Coastcare Project in the Carbrook Wetlands

Sept. 1999 University Speaker, Helensvale High School

4 Sept. 1999 Invited Speaker, Brisbane City Council, Karawatha Forest Natural Area Forum

Feb. 1999 Library Display, The Southport School

1 Nov. 1998 Invited Speaker, Hinterland Nature Day (Mt Tamborine).

14 Nov. 1998 Invited Speaker, Frog Expo (Wildlife Preservation Society).

7 Sept. 1998 Invited Speaker, Queensland Museum (Threatened Species Network)

7 Dec. 1997 Invited Speaker, Queensland Reptile & Amphibian Club

26 Sept. 1997 Invited Speaker, Wildlife Preservation Society

5, June 1997 Invited Speaker, Public Forum World Environment Day

May 1997 University Speaker, King's Christian College

Student Supervision

Postgraduate

Completed GU Certificate in RHD Supervision in February 2005.

PhD Student Supervision:

Subhashni Appanna: Principal Supervisor (co-supervised by Dr G. Castley). SITEs: Sustainability Indicators for Terrestrial Ecosystems. February 2007 – present.

Danial Stratford (co-supervised by Dr G. Castley). Predicting and Measuring the impacts of climate change on frogs in Karawatha Forest. February 2007 – present.

Ross Sadlier: Principal Supervisor (co-supervised by Dr G. Castley). Griffith University Gold Coast: (full-time). A synopsis of the endemic Scincid lizards of New Caledonia. May 2006 – present.

Abraham Mijares-Urrutia: Principal Supervisor (co-supervised by Dr J. Hughes). Conservation Genetics of the Acid Frogs and sister species from the Wallum habitats of mid-eastern Australia. Griffith University Gold Coast: (full-time) March 2005 –

Chris Gregory: Principal Supervisor (co-supervised by Dr S. Phillips). The Morphological, Genetic, and Ecological Correlates of Distribution within the Genus Pseudonaja (Serpentes: Elapidae). Griffith University

Gold Coast: (full-time) March 2005 – Ulrike Bauer: Principal Supervisor (co-supervised by Dr Jochen Mueller; National Institute for Ecotoxicology). Investigations into the effects of herbicides on amphibians in Australia. Griffith University Gold Coast: (full-time) March 2004 –

Tania Fuessel: Fireant ecology. Associate Supervisor (with Dr C. Wild). Griffith University Gold Coast: (full-time) January 2002 – present.

Brian Zancola: Associate Supervisor. Animal mediated allelopathy by native rainforest trees. Griffith University Gold Coast: (full-time) June 1997 – 2002, continuing.

Kerry Kriger. Principal Supervisor. The Ecology of chytridiomycosis eastern Australia. Griffith University Gold Coast: (full-time) November 2003 -2006, Awarded 2007.

Simon Hodgkison: Principal Supervisor. Ecological evaluation of Golf courses. Griffith University Gold Coast: (full-time) March 2001 – submitted in 2005, Awarded 2006.

Luke Shoo: Principal Supervisor. Predicting and detecting the impacts of climate change on montane fauna in Australian tropical rainforests. Griffith University Gold Coast: (full- time) March 2000- Completed/ Awarded 2005.

Naomi Doak. Principal Supervisor (co-supervised by Dr J. Hughes) Phylogeography, Dispersal and movement of Fleay’s Barred Frog, Mixophyes fleayi. Griffith University Gold Coast: (full-time) April 2000 – Completed/ Awarded 2005.

Carisa Larson: Principal Supervisor (co-supervised Prof J. Hughes) Phylogenetic genetics of Pseudophryne species in south-east Queensland. G. U.: (full-time) Nov. 2002, withdrew Nov. 2003.

Donna Hazel: Associate-supervisor (with Dr D. Lindenmeyer). Amphibians in Modified Landscapes. The Australian National University, Canberra. 1999 – Completed/ Awarded 2002.

Clare Morrison. Principal Supervisor: Influence of altitude on the population and reproductive ecology of amphibians. Griffith University Gold Coast 1997 – Completed/ Awarded 2001.

Richard Retallick: Community Ecology of Eungella Rainforest Frogs. James Cook University: March 1994 – Completed: March 2001. Principal Supervisor (co-supervised by Dr R. Alford).

Martin Cohen: "Ecology of colonising and established populations of Bufo marinus in north-eastern Australia". James Cook University: June 1994 – Completed: December 1995. Principal Supervisor (co-supervised by Dr J Seymour and Dr R. Alford).

Damian White: Principal Supervisor. The Effect of Habitat Isolation & Fragmentation on Fauna Diversity. Griffith University Gold Coast. June 2000 – withdrew December 2007. Karen Rudkin. Associate Supervisor. An assessment of fish reserves in Moreton Bay. Griffith University Gold Coast: (full-time 2002–2003), & resumed Part-time in 2005, withdrew Nov. 2005.

MSc Students

Lovemore Mazibuko: Strategies on conservation, management and sustainable utilization of the herpetofauna of Mughese, Ntchisi, and Tsamba Forest Reserves. External co- supervisor with Dr. John K. E. Mfune, University of Malawi. November 2002, Completed 2007.

Simon Hodgkison. Behavioural and feeding ecology of Litoria nannotis. James Cook University: (part-time) March 1996 – Completed 1998.

Undergraduate

Honours Students

Saara Kampmann 2007- 2008. Association between Reptile Species Composition, Vegetation Structure, Topography and Fire History of Karawatha Forest.

Sarah Butler 2007. Association between Mesoscale Tree Species Composition, Density and Size Class Distribution, and the Soil Characteristics, Topography and Fire History of Karawatha. - Awarded First Class.

Sonja Wapstra. 2004 – 2005. Prevalence of chytrid disease in population of Giant Barred- frogs (Mixophyes iteratus) along the Coomera River. Continuing, part-time. - Awarded First Class.

Nicholas Murray 2004 – 2005. Diurnal movements, habitat use and foraging ecology of Australian White Ibis on the Gold Coast: implications for management. (Co-supervised with Dr Darryl Jones). Continuing, part-time. - Awarded First Class.

Luke Grainger 2005. Factors influencing the reproductive success of Litoria olongburensis at Gold Coast Airport, 2004. part-time 2004-2005. - Awarded First Class.

Marama Hopkins 2003. Spatial ecology of the acid frogs (Crinia tinnula and L. olongburensis) on the Gold Coast Airport. Griffith University – Awarded 2A.

Samantha Ward 2003. Reproductive Phenology, Environmental Influences and Population dynamics of Mixophyes iteratus in southeast Queensland. Griffith University – Awarded 2A.

Karen Rudkin 2001. A preliminary assessment of two north Queensland estuaries containing "no-take" fish reserves: quantifying the variability in relative abundance and length of distribution of target species. Griffith University - Awarded First Class.

Melody Stoneham 2001 Larval ecology of Mixophyes species in South-eastern Qld. Griffith University - Awarded First Class. Amy Koch 2000 Movement and Population Dynamics of a Mixophyes iteratus population. Griffith University - Awarded First Class.

Brent Dadds 2000 Population Ecology and Habitat Use of the RARE Green-thighed Frog (Litoria brevipalmata). Griffith University - Awarded First Class.

Katie Neilson 2000 Survey and monitoring the impacts of sand-mining on frogs (Co- supervised with Dr Grant Wardell Johnson as principal supervisor). Griffith University - Awarded 2A.

Luke Shoo 1999 Habitat and microhabitat preferences of Mixophyes species in South- eastern Queensland. Griffith University - Awarded First Class.

Craig Streatfeild 1999 Home range, movement and refugia of Mixophyes species in South-eastern Queensland. Griffith University - Awarded First Class.

Cathy Oke 1996 Population genetics of Taudactylus eungellensis. La Trobe University, Melbourne (Co-supervisor with Prof. Ross Crozzier). Awarded First Class.

Bill Smith 1996 Acoustic ecology of Litoria xanthomera. James Cook University - Awarded First Class.

Jeff Richardson 1996 How habitat heterogeneity and patch size affect the relationship between species diversity and richness. James Cook University - Awarded 2A.

Yvette Buffett 1995 Larval ecology of savanna woodland tadpoles in the Townsville Region. James Cook University - Awarded First Class.

Sheree Fickling 1995 Factors affecting the local distribution of frogs in the Tully Gorge. James Cook University - Awarded 2A.

Post Graduate Diploma Students

Simon Hodgkison: Behavioural and feeding ecology of Litoria nannotis. James Cook University: March 1995 - March 1996.

Lisa Warrell: Relationships between fecundity and the ecological characteristics of amphibians. James Cook University: March 1996 - March 1997.

Undergraduate Research Project Students

(GU-GC: EAS 3102 Field Research Project; JA13F01 Project; JA24005 Approved Topic in Biology:)

Kate Leopold-Wooldridge: Semester 2, 2006. Spatial distribution and relative abundance of the endangered Giant Barred Frog Myxophes iteratus.

Jenny Engstrom: Semester I 2000. History of the Kombumerri Tribe - Traditional Landowners of the Gold Coast. Anita Petzler: Semester III 1999. Influence of fragmentation and disturbance on Brisbane Frogs.

Shane Molony: Semester III 1999. Influence of fragmentation and disturbance on Water Dragons.

Grant Millar: Semester III 1999. Influence of fragmentation and disturbance on Brisbane Frogs.

Paul J. Lutz: Semester III 1998. Diversity and species richness of vertebrate leaf litter organisms in different forest types.

Brock Humphris: Semester III 1998 Diversity and species richness of invertebrate leaf litter organisms in different forest types.

Emma Blackford: Semester III 1998. Movement and Home Range of Mixophyes iteratus & M. fasciolatus.

Luke Shoo: Sem. II, 1998. Do the aposematic tadpoles of Bufo marinus change colour in response to variations in light and background ?

Nicole Thyer: The distribution and relative abundance of amphibians found in aquatic habitats of Nerang State Forest. Sem. II, 1997

Melinda Laidlaw: The distribution and relative abundance of amphibians found in aquatic habitats of Ashtonville State Forest. Sem. II, 1997

Michelle Murdoch: Influence of Groundsel cover on reptile community structure at Griffith University Gold Coast. Sem. II, 1997

Eri Takahashi: Environmental constraints on life history characteristics of ectotherms. Sem. I, 1997.

Craig Streatfeild: An update on southeast Queensland frogs: the diversity and distribution of rainforest frogs in the Conondale Ranges and Lamington National Park. Field research Project, Sem. III 1997.

NAME: PROFESSOR ARTHUR GEORGES

Professor Applied Ecology – University of Canberra

QUALIFICATIONS 1982 PhD, University of Queensland, Zoology 1975 Honours First Class, University of Queensland, Zoology 1973 BSc, University of Queensland, Mathematics 1969-80 Commonwealth Secondary, Tertiary and Postgraduate Scholar

UNIVERSITY SERVICE 2004+ Professor in Applied Ecology 1994-2004 Associate Professor in Applied Ecology 1989-2005 Director, Applied Ecology Research Group 1999-2001 Program Leader, CRC for Freshwater Ecology 2001-2003 Director, Divisional Research Institute

COMMUNITY SERVICE AND OUTREACH 2008-present Governor, WWF Australia 2007-present ACT Flora and Fauna Committee (Chair, Ministerial Appointment) 2005-present Australian Biodiversity Information Facility (ABIF) Committee ARC Environmental Futures Network (Management Committee) 2004-present ACT Natural Resource Management Advisory Committee (formerly the ACT Environment Advisory Committee) 1996-present IUCN/SSC Committee on Tortoises and Freshwater Turtles (Steering Committee) 1994-present I and members of my team regularly present at schools and in other public fora but records are not kept. In 2007, includes Questacon, public libraries (turnout 90 people), primary schools, ACT Herpetological Association, World Environment Day presentation for Oil Search Ltd. I make regular contributions through the local and national press, including opinion pieces.

TEACHING Undergraduate • Primary responsibility is teaching statistics and numerical analysis to biologists. Innovative approaches developed under a National Teaching Development Grant, CAUT ($32,000). • University Award for Excellence in Teaching (1995) • Inaugural Fellow of the Centre for the Enhancement of Learning, Teaching and Scholarship. Postgraduate • Solid involvement in postgraduate education at honours, masters and PhD level. Current load 9 PhD, 1 honours. Numerous funding sources.

Industry • Courses in statistics and experimental design delivered to industry including NSW Water Authorities, Parks and Wildlife Services, ACIAR, CRC Invasive Animals. Online Online courses offered as non-award, funded by the DEST Priority Reserve Fund and by industry (ACIAR, ICLARM, FRDC). Refer http://ecology.lamsinternational.com/. Research graduates tracked and in influential positions within the environmental sector and the university sector.

RESEARCH Professional Standing • Elected President, Australasian Wildlife Management Society, two terms. • Elected President, Australian Society of Herpetologists, two terms. • Editorial Board, Chelonian Conservation and Biology • Reviewer for peak granting bodies, including the Australian Research Council, National Science Foundation (USA), Natural Environment Research Council (UK), Marsden Grants (NZ). • Reviewer, wide range of leading journals.

RESEARCH INCOME (Currently Active Grants Only)

International

2008-2011 Turtles of the World – Gobal systematics for an imperilled clade. (US National Science Foundation. Associate investigator with HB Shaffer as CI. $618,218.

National Competitive

2007-9 The New Guinea-Australia nexus: Using molecular approaches to probe biogeographical relationships between Australian and New Guinean freshwater turtles (Herman Slade Foundation) $88,000 2005-10 ARC Environmental Futures (ARC Network) (CI and member of Management Committee). $1.5M 2004-6 Sex in dragons: Genetics of sex determination in reptiles (ARC Discovery with Marshall-Graves and Sarre) $600,000 2003-5 Aboriginal harvest of the long-necked turtle: Science underpinning indigenous industry (ARC Linkage). $220,000. Featured in ARC 2007 Annual Report. 2006-8 Conservation biology of the Broad-Shelled Turtle in the Riverland of South Australia (ARC Linkage with Steve Donnellan and Mark Hutchinson)

Industry 2008-9 Sex specific markers in the Corroboree Frog (NSW NPWS/UC collaboration) $50,000. 2007-9 The pig-nosed turtle in the Kikori: Science in support of sustainable indigenous harvest. (Oil Search Ltd) $160,000 2005-7 Phylogeography of the northern long-necked turtle, with emphasis on forensic applications (AFP R&D Program). $67,000

2007 The Bellingen Emydura. Molecular assessment of conservation status. (NSW NPWS) $27,000.

RECENT RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS (2004-8 years only)

2008 Alacs, E.A., and Georges, A. (2008). Wildlife across our borders: A review of the illegal trade in Australia. Australian Journal of Forensic Science 40:199-212. Alacs, E.A., Hillyer, M.J., Georges, A., FitzSimmons, N.N. and Hughes, J.M. (2008). Development of microsatellite markers in the Australasian snake-necked turtle Chelodina rugosa, and cross-species amplification Molecular Ecology Resources, in press. Ezaz, T., O’Meally, D., Quinn, A.E., Sarre, S.D., Georges, A. and Marshall-Graves, J.A. (2008). A simple non-invasive protocol to establish primary cell lines from tail and toe explants for cytogenetic studies in Australian dragon lizards (Squamata: Agamidae). Submitted to Cytotechnology. Ezaz, T., Quinn, T.E., Sarre, S.D., Georges, A., O’Meally, D. and Marshall Graves, J.A. (2008). Molecular marker suggests multiple independent origins of sex- determining mechanisms in Australian dragon lizards. Chromosome Research, in press. Fordham, D., Georges, A. and Brook, B. (2008). Experimental evidence for density dependent responses to mortality of snake-necked turtles. Oecologia, in press. Fordham, D., Georges, A. and Brook, B.W. (2008). Indigenous harvest, exotic pig predation and local persistence of a long-lived vertebrate: managing a tropical freshwater turtle for sustainability and conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:52-62. Georges, A., Alacs, E.,Pauza, M. Kinginapi, F., Ona, A. and Eisemberg, C. (2008). Freshwater turtles of the Kikori Drainage, Papua New Guinea, with special reference to the pig-nosed turtle, Carettochelys insculpta. Wildlife Research, in press. Georges, A., Doody, J.S., Eisemberg, C., Alacs, E.A. and Rose, M. (2008). Carettochelys insculpta Ramsay 1886 -- Pig-nosed Turtle, Fly River Turtle. Chelonian Research Monographs 5: in press. [9.1-9.17 doi: 103854/crm.5.009.insculpta.v1.2008] Georges, A., Norris, R.H. and Hone, J. (2008). Applied Ecology. Applied Ecology. Pp. 227-232 in S.E. Jorgensen and B.D. Fath (Eds). Encyclopedia of Ecology, Volume 1, 1st Edition. Oxford: Elsevier. Kennett, R., Roe, J.H., Hodges, K. and Georges, A. Chelodina longicollis. Eastern Long-necked Turtle. Chelonian Research Monographs 5, in press. Martinez, P. A., Ezaz, T., Valenzuela, N., Georges, A. and Marshall Graves, J.A. (2008). An XX/XY heteromorphic sex chromosome system in the Australian chelid turtle Emydura macquarii : A new piece in the puzzle of sex chromosome evolution in turtles. Chromosome Research16: 815-825. Quinn, A.E., Ezaz, T., Sarre, S.D., Georges, A., and Marshall Graves, J.A. (2008). From AFLP to Z: Isolation, conversion, and physical mapping of sex chromosome sequence in a dragon lizard. Heredity, submitted. Quinn, A.E., Georges, A., Sarre, S.D., Ezaz, T., J.A. Marshall Graves (2008). A model of evolutionary threshold transitions in sex determination . Submitted.

Radder, R.S., Quinn, A.E., Georges, A., Sarre, S.D. and Shine, R. (2008). Genetic evidence for the co-occurrence of chromosomal and thermal sex determining systems in a lizard. Biology Letters 4:176-178. Roe, J.H. and Georges, A. (2008). Responses of freshwater turtles to drought: the past, present and implications for future climate change in Australia. In Gow, K. and Paton, D. (Eds). The Phoenix of Natural Disasters: Impact of Drought. Nova Science Publishers, New York. Under review. Roe, J.H. and Georges, A. (2008). Terrestrial activity, movements, and spatial ecology of an Australian freshwater turtle, Chelodina longicollis, in a temporally dynamic wetland system. Austral Ecology, in press. Roe, J.H. and Georges, A. (2008). Maintenance of variable responses for coping with wetland drying in freshwater turtles. Ecology 89:485-494. Roe, J.H., Briton, A.C. and Georges, A. (2008). Temporal and spatial variation in landscape connectivity for an Australian freshwater turtle in a temporally dynamic wetland system. Ecological Applications, in press [accepted 14-Nov- 08]. Roe, J.H., Georges, A. and Green, B. (2008). Energy and water flux during terrestrial estivation and overland movement in a freshwater turtle. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 81:570-583. Sarre, S.D. and Georges, A. (2008). Genetics in conservation and wildlife management: A revolution since Caughley. Wildlife Research, in press. 2007 Fordham, D., Georges, A. and Brook, B.W. (2007). Demographic response of snake- necked turtles correlates with indigenous harvest and feral pig predation in tropical northern Australia. Journal of Animal Ecology 76:1231-1243. Fordham, D., Georges, A. and Corey, B. (2007). Optimal conditions for egg storage, incubation and post-hatching growth for the freshwater turtle, Chelodina rugosa: Science in support of an indigenous enterprise. Aquaculture 270:105-114. McGaugh, S.E., Alacs, A.A., Edwards, S.V., Feldman, C.R.,Georges, A., Sites, J.W., Valenzuela, N. (2007). From molecules to organisms: Research applications of modern genetic tools for turtle biology and conservation. Chelonian Research Monographs 4:47-72. Quinn, A.E.., Georges, A., Sarre, S.D., Guarino, F., Ezaz, T., and Graves, J.A.M. (2007). Temperature sex reversal implies sex gene dosage in a reptile. Science 316:411, plus supplement. Roe, J.H. and Georges, A. (2007). Heterogeneous wetland complexes, buffer zones and travel corridors: Landscape management for freshwater reptiles. Biological Conservation 135:67-76. Shaffer, H.B., Fitzsimmons, N.N., Georges A. and Rhodin, A. (Eds). (2007). Advances in Turtle Genetics and Systematics. Chelonian Research Monographs 4. 2006 Doody, J.S., Guarino, F., Georges, A., Corey, B., Murray, G. and Ewert, M.W. (2006). Nest site choice compensates for climate effects on sex ratios in a lizard with environmental sex determination. Evolutionary Ecology 20:307-330. Ezaz, T., Valenzuela, N., Grützner, F., Miura, I., Burke, R., Georges, A. and Marshall-Graves, J.A. (2006). An XX/XY sex micro-chromosome system in a freshwater turtle, Chelodina longicollis (Testudines: Chelidae) with genotypic sex determination Chromosome Research 14:139-150.

Fordham, D., Georges, A. and Corey, B. (2006). Compensation for inundation- induced embryonic diapause in a freshwater turtle: Achieving predictability in the face of environmental stochasticity. Functional Ecology 20:670-677. Fordham, D., Georges, A., Corey, B. and Brook, B.W. (2006). Feral pig predation threatens the indigenous harvest and local persistence of snake-necked turtles in northern Australia. Biological Conservation 133:379-388. Georges A. and Thomson, S. (2006). Evolution and Zoogeography of the Australian Freshwater Turtles. In Merrick, J.R., Archer, M., Hickey, G. and Lee, M. (eds).Evolution and Zoogeography of Australasian Vertebrates. AUSCIPUB (Australian Scientific Publishing) Pty Ltd, Sydney. In press, October 2006. Georges, A., Guarino, F. and Bito, B. (2006). Freshwater turtles of the TransFly Region of Papua New Guinea – Notes on diversity, distribution, reproduction, harvest and trade. Wildlife Research 33:373-384. Georges, A., Guarino, F. and White, M. (2006). Sex ratio variation across populations of a turtle species with genotypic sex determination. Wildlife Research 33:475- 480. Kingsford R.T., Georges, A. and Unmack, P.J. (2006). Vertebrates of desert rivers: meeting the challenges of temporal and spatial unpredictability. Pp. 154-200 in Kingsford, R.T. (Ed). Ecology of Desert Rivers. Cambridge University Press, ISBN-10: 0521818257. Thomson, S., Georges, A. and Limpus, C.L. (2006). A new species of freshwater turtle in the genus Elseya (Testudines: Chelidae) from central coastal Queensland, Australia. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 5:74-86. 2005 Ezaz, T., Quinn, A.E., Miura, I., Sarre, S.D., Georges, A. and Marshall-Graves, J.A. (2005). The dragon lizard Pogona vitticeps has ZZ/ZW micro-sex chromosomes. Chromosome Research 13:763-776. Georges, A., Beggs, K., Young, J.E. and Doody, J.S. (2005). Modelling reptilian development under fluctuating temperature regimes. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 78:18-30. 2004 Doody, J.S., Georges, A. and Young J.E. (2004). Determinants of reproductive success and offpring sex in a turtle with environmental sex determination. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, London 80:1-16. Georges, A., Doody, J.S., Beggs K. and Young J.E. (2004). Thermal models of TSD under laboratory and field conditions. Pp. 79-89 in Valenzuela, N. and Lance, V. (Eds). Temperature dependent sex determination in reptiles. Smithsonian Institute, Washington. Sarre, S., Georges, A. and Quinn, A. (2004). The ends of a continuum: Genetic and temperature-dependent sex determination in reptiles. Bioessays 26:639-645. Young, J.E., Georges, A., Doody J.S., West P.B. and Alderman R.L. (2004). Pivotal range and thermosensitive period of the pig-nosed turtle, Carettochelys insculpta (Testudines: Carettochelydidae) from northern Australia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 82:1251-1257.

SELECTED RESEARCH APPLICATION

Georges, A. and Alacs, E.A. (2007). The Pig-nosed Turtle in the Kikori: Options for Research to Support Conservation and Management. Report to Oilsearch Pty Ltd, Sydney, by the Institute for Applied Ecology, University of Canberra. February 2007. Georges, A., Alacs, E.A. and Kinginapi, F. (2007). Freshwater turtles of the Kikori (with special reference to the pig-nosed turtle). Report to Oilsearch Pty Ltd, Sydney and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), by the Institute for Applied Ecology, University of Canberra. January 2007. Farley, S., Farrington, L., Fitzsimmons, N.N, Georges, A. and Thomson, S. (2007). Conservation genetics: Burnett, Mary, and Fitzroy River Catchments. Appendix 1, Pp. 137-142 in Hamann, M., Schäuble, C.S., Limpus, D.J., Emerick, S.P. and Limpus, C.J. Management plan for the conservation of Elseya sp. [Burnett River] in the Burnett River Catchment. Queensland Government, Environmental Protection Agency. Georges, A., Walsh, R., Spencer, R.J., Welsh, M. and Shaffer, HB. (2007). The Bellinger Emydura. Conserve or Eradicate? Report to NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney, by the Institute for Applied Ecology, University of Canberra. July 2007. Spencer, R-J., Georges, A., and Welsh, M. (2007). The Bellinger Emydura. Ecology, Population Status and Management. Report to NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney, by the Institute for Applied Ecology, University of Canberra. July 2007. Georges, A., Guarino, F. and Bito, B. (2005). Freshwater Turtles of the TransFly Report to the Suki/Aramba Wildlife Management Committee, Serki, Western Province, Papua New Guinea by the Institute for Applied Ecology, University of Canberra. October 2005. 31 pp. plus 2 attachments. Georges, A. et al. (2003). The January 2003 ACT Fires: Priorities for Research to Inform Management. Outcomes of a Workshop held at the University of Canberra, Friday October 31, 2003, on behalf of the ACT Natural Resource Management Committee. Erskine WD, Begg GW, Jolley P, Georges A, O'Grady A, Eamus P, Rae N, Dostine P, Townsend S and Padovan A (2003). Recommended environmental water requirements for the Daly River, Northern Territory, based on ecological, hydrological and biological principles. Report produced for NTDIPE by Supervising Scientist Division, Supervising Scientist, Darwin NT. Georges A., Webster I., Guarino E., Thoms M., Jolley P. and Doody J.S. (2002). National River Health Program: Modelling dry season flows and predicting the impact of water extraction on a flagship species. Report No. ID 23045, National Heritage Trust via the Department of Lands, Planning and Environment, NT. Cottingham, P., Georges, A., Briscoe, D., Butcher, R., Cullen, P., Deere, D., Harris, J., Hughes, J., Knowles, M., Lake, S., Lanertz, K., Paul, A., Reed, J., Williams, S. and Yates, D. (2000). Managing Biodiversity in the Sydney Water Supply Catchments. Proceedings of a Workshop, Warragamba Conference Centre, NSW. 12th & 13th October 2000. Technical Report 9/2000, CRC for Freshwater Ecology, December 2000. Williams, D.G., Osborne, W., Georges, A. and Holloway, S. (1995). Principles and strategic options for the conservation of native grasslands and their threatened fauna in Gungahlin, A.C.T. Report to the ACT Planning Authority, Canberra. June 1995. 88 pp.

NAME: Dr FREDREIKE JANET KROON

Senior Research Scientist - CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems

EMPLOYMENT

07/2005 - current: Senior Research Scientist, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Atherton • Responsible for leading large research programs on water quality improvement in the Great Barrier Reef catchment involving various scientific disciplines across multiple Divisions and institutions. Duties include engaging with research providers, clients and stakeholders in the GBR catchment to set strategic research directions, communicating research results to clients and the scientific community, and advising policy makers on water quality issues. • Leader of the ‘Reef Futures’ stream within CSIRO’s Water for a Healthy Country Flagship Program, comprising most of CSIRO’s biophysical and socio-economic research on water quality improvement in the Great Barrier Reef catchment (16 FTEs, AUS$4.5M/yr). • Project Leader of ‘Reef Water Quality Options’ project, which aims to develop an integrated science approach to provide understanding about policy options for effects- based, diffuse pollution in the Great Barrier Reef (6 FTEs and AUS$1.4M/yr). • Successfully managed development and delivery of the Tully Water Quality Improvement Plan for the Regional NRM board (AUS$1.5M, 2 yrs), resulting in a scientifically robust and community driven plan for water quality improvement in the Tully-Murray basin, and a Special Issue of the journal Marine and Freshwater Research (in prep). • Project leader on several other projects, including (i) valuation of ecosystem services for fisheries production in coastal floodplains, (ii) management of invasive fish species in the Wet Tropics region, and (iii) behavioural endocrinology of sex change in marine fish. • Line manager of a group of 4 FTEs across several locations with CSIRO’s Division of Sustainable Ecosystems.

07/2002 – 06/2005: Research Scientist, CSIRO Land and Water, Brisbane • In this newly created position, responsible for developing an entirely new research program in the area of aquatic ecology in tropical rivers and estuaries in northern Australia. • Principal Investigator of ‘Queensland Tropical Fish Ecology’ project, which examined the effectiveness of riparian restoration in improving in-stream health in tropical coastal streams (funded by Earthwatch Institute and CSIRO’s Water for a Healthy Country Flagship Program). • As part of a team, successful in obtaining three short-term consultancies, on (i) ‘Queensland Government water quality and aquatic health monitoring and information requirements’, (ii) ‘Best practice sustainable water management in the rangelands’, and (iii) ‘Field test of antimycin management baits to control pest fish’. • Project Officer for the Aquatic Ecosystem Working Group within the Consortium for Integrated Resource Management (CIRM). • Research results communicated to clients and the scientific community through oral and written papers and reports, including invited oral presentation at Earthwatch Institute Annual Conference in Boston, USA, in 2004.

02/2000 – 06/2002: Research Scientist, NSW Fisheries, Port Stephens • Principal Investigator of research project, entitled “Coastal floodplain management in eastern Australia: barriers to fish and invertebrate recruitment in acid sulphate soil catchments” (FRDC 1998/215, AUS$1.0M, 3 yrs). • Responsible for (i) setting research schedules, providing scientific instructions in aspects of the research program, and overseeing project management and budget requirements, (ii) maintaining strong collaborations with NSW Department of Agriculture, University of New South Wales, University of Newcastle, and numerous and varied stakeholder groups associated with the project, and (iii) communicating research findings via scientific avenues, via reports to funding bodies, and via extension activities to industry groups, government agencies and the general community. • Project resulted in journal publications, presentations at international and national conferences, as well as on-ground changes in land management practices that have improved water quality and fish passage in coastal floodplains. • Supervised seven full-time and casual technicians, and a total of 31 work experience students and volunteers, and co-supervised two Honours students. • Progressed directly to the level of Research Scientist (Year 2) after having been employed as Scientific Officer (Grade 2) for only five months, following external peer review of Research Scientist Classification within the NSW Public Service.

1998 – 2000: Lecturer Tropical Ecology, The School for Field Studies, Yungaburra • Responsible for developing and teaching a 1/4 semester course in ‘Rainforest Ecology’ (field and class room; approximately 50 hrs), a brief course in ‘Statistics and Experimental Design’, and organising the overall academic schedule, at the Boston University accredited School for Field Studies. • Responsible for developing a research program that focussed on environmental management of tropical landscapes in conjunction with local stakeholders and partners, including research providers, State Agencies, national NGOs, and local community and conservation groups. • Prepared project results for clients and partners, for publication in international refereed journal, and for conference presentations. • Assisted in the creation and implementation of Centre research policies, and engaged in appropriate data management and record keeping.

1997: Casual, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Atherton • Conducted fieldwork on patterns of song variation and their consequences in birds of the upland tropical rainforests of Northern Queensland. • Prepared journal publications and presentations for various international and national conferences.

1992 – 1997: Teaching Assistant, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada • Responsible for laboratory demonstrations, managing class groups, supervising laboratory classes, advising students, and marking assignments and exams, in various undergraduate courses, including 1st year Introductory Biology, 2nd year Comparative Vertebrate Morphology, and 2nd year Comparative Invertebrate Morphology.

Research Fields and Current Interests • Over 20 years of experience in working in freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems, including tropical and temperate environments. • Main research interests in behaviour (including behavioural ecology), ecology and reproductive endocrinology, with specific interests in effects of environmental factors on ecology, behaviour and reproduction of animals in general, and fishes in particular. • More recently focusing on coastal floodplain rehabilitation in eastern Australia, using a collaborative and integrated approach to both land management and aquatic/marine health, to improve water quality, aquatic/marine biodiversity and fisheries production.

Research Skills and Experience • Extensive experience in, and a thorough understanding of field research and laboratory techniques in the area of behavioural ecology and reproductive endocrinology, including (i) fish collecting, handling, measuring and mark-and-recapture techniques, (ii) assessing fish reproductive output, including gonadal histology, (iii) various methods to monitor, record and analyse animal behaviour, including recording and analysis of vocal signals, (iii) various methods to sample and quantify habitat and water quality variables, including analysis of aquatic food web structures using stable isotopes, (v) various extraction and analysis methods for sex steroids, including Radio Immuno Assays, and (vi) experimental design and data analyses methods, including parametric and non-parametric, and uni- variate and multi-variate techniques. • Approximately 1,000 dives logged in both marine and fresh water in tropical and temperate environments, over half of which conducted for scientific research (Instructor, PADI I-111316; 1997).

Education 1992-1997 PhD, Department of Zoology, The University of British Columbia, Canada. ‘Protogynous hermaphroditism in a temperate reef fish, the blackeye goby, Coryphopterus nicholsii (Pisces: Gobiidae)’ 1985-1991 Drs, Biology, The University of Groningen, The Netherlands. 1. ‘The effect of social status on the timebudget of Sparisoma viride, the Stoplight parrotfish.’ 2. ‘Contraregulating mechanisms during insuline-induced hypoglycaemia: feeding and/or sympathoadrenergic activation.’

Affiliations: Adjunct Lecturer, School of Tropical and Marine Biology, James Cook University

Member of: International Coral Reef Society, Australian Society for Fish Biology, Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation, Australian and New Guinea Fish Association, Birds Australia

Professional, administrative and community service 2006 – current Working Group for Invasive Aquatic Fauna of Northern Queensland 2005 – current Tully Murray Floodplain Program Steering Committee 2003 – 2005 CSIRO Long Pocket Environmental Management Committee 2001 – 2002 NSW Oyster Research Advisory Committee 2000 – 2001 NSW Fisheries Scuba Diving Committee 1999 – 2000 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Local Marine Advisory Committee, Cairns

NAME: Dr CRAIG MILLER Senior Research Scientist CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems

Qualifications 2002 PhD University of Canterbury, Forestry 1992 MSc University of Auckland, Zoology, First Class Honours 1989 BSc Massey University, Zoology Employment 2004 – Current: Senior Research Scientist, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems
Stream Leader for Biodiversity management, policy and implementation, within the Healthy terrestrial Ecosystems research theme.
Working with the Australian dairy industry on climate adaptation.
AusAID funded research on biodiversity conservation, poverty alleviation and climate change in SE Asia.
Researching indigenous livelihoods through natural resource management, Torres Strait Islands.
Member of the Independent Monitoring Panel for the Cowal Gold Project, NSW. 2002 – 2004: Project Manager, Macquarie University
Develop ARC Linkage research project with three industry partners, two State government agencies and four Universities for experimental riparian and riverine restoration, Hunter Valley, NSW.
Manage industry partner and community relationships.
Manage restoration and research activities, including riparian revegetation, and the reinstatement of large woody debris instream. 1993 – 2002: Conservancy Advisory Scientist, Department of Conservation, NZ
Provide scientific advice to regional and national conservation managers and policy officers on all aspects of conservation management.
Conduct research into threatened species management, pest control, and the ecology of floodplain forest in agricultural landscapes.
Liaise with industries seeking to extract natural resources from conservation lands and/or seeking to apply sustainable management principles to their own land. 1992 – 1993: Pest Monitoring Officer, Wellington Regional Council, NZ
Advise pest control managers on the ecology of pest animals.
Design and implement monitoring programmes to determine the success of pest control operations. Publications (2000 – 2009) Miller, C.J.; Howden, S.M.; Jones, R.N. (in press). Intensive livestock industries. Chapter 11 in climate change adaptation in Australian primary industries – impacts, options and priorities. CSIRO Publishing.

Higgins, A.J.; Miller, C.J.; Archer, A.A.; Ton, T.; Fletcher, C.S.; McAllister, R.J.J. (in press) Applying complex system science methods to operations research into agricultural value chains. Journal of the Operational Research Society. Hajkowicz, S.; Higgins, A.; Miller, C.; Marinoni, O. (2009). Is getting a conservation model used more important than getting it accurate? Biological Conservation 142: 699-700. Hajkowicz, S.; Higgins, A.; Miller, C.; Marinoni, O. (2008). Targeting conservation payments to achieve multiple conservation outcomes. Biological Conservation. 141: 2368-2375. Miller, C.J.; Higgins, A.J.; Archer, A.A.; Fletcher, C.S.; Ton, T.; McAllister, R.J.J. (2007). Meta- organisational resilience: emerging thoughts on the resilience of complex agricultural value chains. Pp. 65 – 83 in Building and sustaining resilience in complex organisations (Kay, R. and Richardson, K.A. eds.). ISCE Publishing, MA, USA. Miller, C.J.; Fletcher, C.S. 2006. Applying resilience theory in rangeland management. Proceedings of the 14th Biennial Conference Australian Rangelands Society, Renmark, South Australia. Fletcher, C.S.; Miller, C.J.; Hilbert, D.W. 2006. Operationalising resilience in Australian and New Zealand agro-ecosystems. Proceedings of the 50th Annual Conference, The International Society for the Systems Sciences, Sonoma state university, Rohnet Park, California. Miller, C.J.; James, C; Kroon, F.; Hancock, P.; Smyth, A.; Gordon, I. 2006. Best practice water management for biodiversity in the rangelands. Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra. Miller, C.J. (2006) Vegetation on the edge: a gradient analysis of the riparian zone, Poerua River, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 30: 357-370. Miller, C.J. (2006) Does cattle grazing facilitate or hinder the recruitment of podocarps in floodplain forest patches, south Westland, New Zealand? Ecological Management and Restoration 7: 232- 233. Rutledge, D.T.; Miller, C.J. (2006) The use of landscape indices in studies of the effect of habitat loss and fragmentation. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung (Nature conservation and landscape planning). Brierley, G., Miller, C., Brooks, A., Fryirs, K., Boulton, A., Ryder, D., Leishman, M., Keating, D., Lander, J. 2005. Making integrative, cross-disciplinary research happen: initial lessons from the Upper Hunter River Rehabilitation Initiative. Pp 125-133 in Rutherurd, I.D., Wiznewski, I., Askey- Doran, M.J., Glazik, R. (eds) Proceedings of the 4th Australian stream management conference: linking rivers to landscapes. DPIWE, Hobart, Tasmania. Miller, C. 2004. Floristics and species richness of floodplain forests, south Westland, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Botany 42: 847-860. Miller, C.; Norton, D.; Miller, T. 2004. Kahikatea Dacrycarpus dacrydioides and totara-matai Podocarpus totara-Prumnopitys taxifolia forest patches in the agricultural landscape, Westland, New Zealand: representatives of a past and future condition. Pacific Conservation Biology 9: 278- 293. Miller, C.; Wells, A. 2003. Cattle grazing and the regeneration of totara (Podocarpus totara var. waihoensis) on river terraces, south Westland, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 27: 37-44. Cochrane, H.; Norton, D.; Miller, C.; Allen, R. 2003. Brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) diet in a north Westland mixed-beech (Nothofagus) forest. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 7: 61-65. Roper-Lindsay, J.; Simmons, E.; Solon, J.; Jongman, R.; Degorski, M.; Miller, C. 2003. Recommendations for future research: Biodiversity and landscape diversity. Pp. 155-159 in Multifunctional Landscapes. Vol II. Monitoring, Diversity and Management (Brandt, J. & Vejre, H,. eds.). WIT Press, Great Britain. Miller, C. 2002. Conservation of riparian forest remnants, West Coast, New Zealand. Landscape Research 27: 125-140. Miller, C.; Elliot, M.; Alterio, N. 2001. Home range of stoats (Mustela erminea) in a podocarp forest, south Westland, New Zealand: implications for a control strategy. Wildlife Research 28: 165-172. Miller, C. 2001. Long-term monitoring of a breeding colony of white herons (Egretta alba) on the Waitangiroto River, South Westland, New Zealand. Notornis 48: 157-163. Norton, D.; Miller, C. 2000. Some issues and options for the conservation of native biodiversity in rural New Zealand. Ecological Management and Restoration 1:26-34. Miller, C. 2000. Vegetation and habitat are not synonyms. A perspective on New Zealand’s Resource Management Act. Ecological Management and Restoration 1: 103-105.

NAME: FRANCIS LAURENCE LEMCKERT

ACADEMIC RECORD 2001 - 2009 – PhD UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE - Habitat relationships and management of pond breeding frogs in the forests of Eastern NSW This project is investigating the habitat requirements and impacts of habitat disturbance on pond breeding frogs in the forests of coastal eastern NSW. This involves undertaking habitat assessments and surveys of ponds and analysing this data to consider why different species may use different ponds. Frog populations have also been monitored to record levels of natural population variation and record changes due to disturbances. 1996 - 2007: HONOURARY RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY. 1987 - 1991: MSc UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY – Aspects of the reproductive biology and population dynamics of the Common Eastern Froglet, Ranidella signifera. A two year study was performed on a population of the common froglet Crinia signifera breeding at an isolated pond surrounded by a pitfall and drift-fence system. Each frog captured was measured and marked to monitor changes in the population and in individuals and their use of the pond. Environmental factors were also measured to correlate with breeding activity and the costs or reproduction was assessed for males and females. 1985: MASTER OF SCIENCE QUALIFYING COURSE 1982 - 1984: BACHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE, UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE OCTOBER 1994 to current time: RESEARCH OFFICER WITH THE STATE FORESTS OF N.S.W. (RESEARCH DIVISION) I have been researching the effects of forestry related operations on fauna, particularly amphibians. This has included the use of multivariate analyses of data to identify possible relationships between habitats and habitat disturbances and the presence and abundance of species. I undertake telemetry and spool-tracking to obtain information on the basic ecology of endangered species to aid in their protection. I also organise and run wildlife training schools for Forests NSW that provide information on identification and survey of fauna and flora and provide lectures at the University of Newcastle and University of Sydney on vertebrate biology and management. I am Chairman of the FNSW Animal Care and Ethics Committee. I have co-supervised of seven honours students, an MSc Student and four Ph.D. students.

DECEMBER 1992 TO OCTOBER 1994: SCIENTIFIC OFFICER WITH THE STATE FORESTS OF N.S.W. (RESEARCH DIVISION AND HEAD OFFICE) My duties included assessing Fauna and Environmental Impact Statements prepared for FNSW, writing information profiles for endangered species and serving a working group with the National Parks and Wildlife Service to develop suitable survey guidelines for reptiles and frogs. I also undertook fauna surveys in the Tumut, Dorrigo, Bulahdelah, Tathra and Coolah Tops areas of NSW and co-ordinated survey teams in the first two studies.

1992 NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICE - TECHNICAL OFFICER I assisted in the administration of the Threatened Species legislation which covered evaluating FIS and EISs and associated submissions, advising on development applications, answering inquiries on the legislation and developing threatened species lists.

PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS Book Chapters Green, M., Thompson, M. B. and Lemckert, F. L. (2004). The effects of suspended sediments on the tadpoles of two stream-breeding and forest dwelling frogs, Mixophyes balbus and Heleioporus australiacus. Pp 713-720 In: Conservation of Australia’s Forest Fauna II. D. Lunney (Ed). Royal Zoological Society of NSW, Sydney. Hecnar S. J., and Lemckert, F. L. (In Press). Habitat Protection: Refuges and Reserves. In H. Heatwole (Ed.). Biology of the Amphibia. Volume 8: Conservation and Management. Hero, J-M, Richards, S, Alford, R., Allison, A., Bishop, P., Gunther, R., Iskandar, D., Kraus, F., Lemckert, F., Menzies, J., Roberts, D. and Tyler, M. (2008). Amphibians of the Australasian Realm. Pp 65-73 In: Threatened Amphibians of the World. S. N. Stuart, M. Hoffman, J. S., Chanson, N. A. Cox, R. J. Berridge, P. J. Ramani and B. E. Young (Eds). Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain. Lemckert, F.L. and Morse, R. (1999). Frogs in the timber production forests of the Dorrigo Escarpment in northern New South Wales: An inventory of species present and the conservation of threatened species. Pp. 72-80. In Declines and Disappearances of Australian Frogs. Ed. Alastair Campbell. Environment Australia, Canberra. Lemckert, F. L., Hecnar S. J., and Pilliod, D. S. (2009). Habitat Destruction and Modification. In H. Heatwole (Ed.) Biology of the Amphibia. Volume 8: Conservation and Management. Surrey-Beattey and Sons, Sydney. Lemckert, F.L. and Slatyer, C. (2004). Herps in forests: schools to educate land managers in their conservation. Pp 1055-1058 In: Conservation of Australia’s Forest Fauna Second Edition. Ed. Dan Lunney. Royal Zoological Society of NSW, Sydney.

Scientific Papers Fitzgerald, M., Shine, R. and Lemckert, F. (2002). Radiotelemetric study of habitat use by the arboreal snake Hoplocephalus stephensii (Elapidae) in Eastern Australia. Copeia 2002 (2): 321-332. Fitzgerald, M., Shine, R. and Lemckert, F. (2002). Spatial ecology of arboreal snakes (Hoplocephalus stephensii, Elapidae) in an eastern Australian forest. Austral Ecology 27: 537-545. Fitzgerald, M., Shine, R. and Lemckert, F. (2003). A reluctant heliotherm: thermal ecology of the arboreal snake Hoplocephalus stephensii (Elapidae) in dense forest. Journal of Thermal Biology 28 (7): 515-524.

Fitzgerald, M., Shine, R. and Lemckert, F. (2004). Life history attributes of a threatened Australian snake Hoplocephaplus stephensi (Elapidae). Biological Conservation, 119 (1): 121-128. Fitzgerald, F., Shine, R., Lemckert, F. and Towerton, A. (2005). Habitat requirements of the threatened snake species Hoplocephalus stephensii (Elapidae) in eastern Australia. Austral Ecology 30: 465-474. Goldingay, R., Daly, G. and Lemckert, F. (1996). Assessing the impacts of logging on reptiles and frogs in the montane forests of southern New South Wales. Wildlife Research 23 (4): 495-510. Hero, J-M., Morrison, C., Gillespie, G., Roberts, J. D., Newell, D., Meyer, E., McDonald, K., Lemckert, F., Mahony, M., Osborne, W., Hines, H., Richards, S., Hoskin, C., Clarke, J., Doak, N. and Shoo, L. (2006). Overview of the conservation status of Australian Frogs. Pacific Conservation Biology 12: 313-320. Lemckert, F.L. (1996). Surveys for the green and golden bell frog, Litoria aurea, by the State Forests of New South Wales. Australian Zoologist 30 (2): 208-213. Lemckert, F.L. (1996). Effects of toe-clipping on the survival and behaviour of the Australian frog Crinia signifera. Amphibia: Reptilia 17 (3): 287-290. Lemckert, F.L. (1998). A Survey for threatened herpetofauna of the south-west slopes of New South Wales. Australian Zoologist 30 (4): 492-500. Lemckert, F.L. (1999). Impacts of selective logging on frogs in a forested area of northern New South Wales. Biological Conservation 89 (3): 321-328. Lemckert, F.L. (2000). Parasitism of the Common Eastern Froglet (Crinia signifera) by flies of the genus Batrachomyia: Parasitism rates and the influence on frog condition. Australian Zoologist 31 (2): 492-495. Lemckert, F.L. (2001). The influence of micrometeorological factors on the calling activity of the Australian frog Crinia signifera (Anura: Myobatrachidae). Australian Zoologist 31 (4): 625- 631. Lemckert, F.L. (2004). Variations in anuran movements and habitat use: implications for conservation. Applied Herpetology 1 (3): 165-181. Lemckert, F.L. (2005). Body size of male common eastern froglets Crinia signifera does not appear to influence mating success during explosive breeding events. Acta Zoologica Sinica 51 (2): 232-236. Lemckert, F.L. (2005). Population structure, individual growth and survival of an Australian frog Crinia signifera at a pond. Acta Zoologica Sinica 51 (3): 393-400. Lemckert, F.L. and Brassil, T. (2000). Movements and habitat use of the endangered giant barred river frog, Mixophyes iteratus, and the implications for its conservation in timber production forests. Biological Conservation 96 (2): 177-184. Lemckert, F.L. and Brassil, T. (2004). Movements and habitat use by the giant burrowing frog, Heleioporus australiacus. Amphibia-Reptilia 24: 207-211. Lemckert, F. L. and Mahony, M. J. (2008). Core calling periods of the frogs of temperate New South Wales, Australia. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3 (1): 71-76. Lemckert, F.L., Brassil, T. and Haywood, A. (2004). Effects of low intensity fire on pond- breeding anurans in mid-northern New South Wales, Australia. Applied Herpetology 1 (3): 183-195. Lemckert, F.L. and Shine, R. (1992). Costs of reproduction in a population of the frog Crinia signifera (Anura: Myobatrachidae) from Southeastern Australia. Journal of Herpetology 27 (4): 420-425. Lemckert, F.L. and Slatyer, C. (2002). Short-term movements and habitat use of the green- thighed frog, Litoria brevipalmata (Anura: Hylidae). Australian Zoologist 32 (1): 56-61.

Lemckert, F., Haywood, A., Brassil, T. and Mahony, M. (2006). Correlations between frogs and pond attributes in central New South Wales, Australia: What makes a good pond? Applied Herpetology 3 (1): 67-82. Lemckert, F., Mahony, M., Brassil, T. and Slatyer, C. (2006). The biology of the threatened Green-thighed Frog Litoria brevipalmata (Anura: Hylidae) in the central and mid-north coastal areas of New South Wales. Australian Zoologist 33 (3): 337-344. Lemckert, F., Brassil, T., Kavanagh, R. and Law, B. (2006) Trapping small mammals for research and management: how many die and why? Australian Mammalogy 28 (2): 201-208. Penman, T. D. and Lemckert F. L. (2008), Monitoring the green and golden bell frog: current problems and an alternative approach. Australian Zoologist 24 (3): 373-378. Penman, T., Lemckert, F. and Mahony, M. (2004). Two hundred and ten years of looking for giant burrowing frog. Australian Zoologist 32 (4): 597-604. Penman, T. D., Lemckert, F. L. and Mahony, M. J. (2006). Meteorological effects on the activity of the giant burrowing frog, Heleioporus australiacus, in south-eastern Australia. Wildlife Research 33 (1): 35-40. Penman, T., Lemckert, F. and Mahony, M. (2006). A preliminary investigation into the potential impacts of fire on a forest dependent burrowing frog species. Pacific Conservation Biology 12: 78-83. Penman, T. D, Lemckert, F. L. and Mahony, M. J. (2008). Applied conservation management of a threatened forest dependent frog, Heleioporus australiacus. Endangered Species Research 5: 45-53. Penman, T. D, Lemckert, F. L. and Mahony, M. J. (2008). Spatial ecology of the giant burrowing frog (Heleioporus australiacus): implications for conservation prescriptions. Australian Journal of Zoology 56: 179–186. Penman, T., Mahony, M. and Lemckert, F. (2005). Soil disturbance in integrated logging operations. Applied Herpetology 2 (4): 415-424 Penman, T., Lemckert, F., Slade, C. and Mahony, M. (2006). Non-breeding haibtat requirements of the giant burrowing frog (Heleioporus australiacus) in south-eastern Australia. Australian Zoologist 33: 251-257 Penman, T.D., Mahony, M.J., Towerton, A.L. and Lemcket, F.L. (2005). Bioclimatic analysis of disjunct populations of the giant burrowing Frog, Heleioporus australiacus. Journal of Biogeography 32: 397-405. Penman, T., Mahony, M., Towerton, A. and Lemckert, F. (2007). Spatial models of giant burrowing frog distributions. Endangered Species Research 3: 115-124. Phillot, A. D., Skerratt, L. F., McDonald, K. R., Lemckert, F. L., Hines, H. B., Clarke, J. M., Alford, R. A. and Speare, R. (2007). Toe-clipping as an acceptable method of identifying individual anurans in mark recapture studies. Herpetological Review 38 (3): 305-308. Semeniuk, M., Lemckert, F. L. and Shine, R. (2007). Breeding-site selection by cane toads (Bufo marinus) and native frogs in northern New South Wales, Australia. Wildlife Research 34 (1): 59-66. Slatyer, C., Rosauer, D. and Lemckert, F. (2007). An assessment of endemism and species richness patterns in the Australian Anura. Journal of Biogeography 34: 583-596.

Shorter Communications Lemckert, F.L. (1996). An observation of aggregation behaviour by tadpoles of the great barred river frog (Mixophyes fasciolatus). Herpetofauna 26 (1): 43-44. Lemckert, F.L. (1998). A record of Neobatrachus from the Cessnock area of New South Wales. Herpetofauna 28 (2): 48.

Lemckert, F.L. (2000). An observation of predation on an adult Toadlet (Uperoleia laevigata) by a dragonfly nymph. Herpetofauna 30 (1): 50. Lemckert, F.L. (2000). Observations on the effects of fire on the Hip-pocket Frog, Assa darlingtoni. Herpetofauna 30 (2): 51-52. Lemckert, F. (2003). Crying in the dark: Persistent calling at a dry breeding site by the bleating tree frog, Litoria dentata. Herpetofauna 32 (2): 93-94. Lemckert, F. (2003). Old green-thighed frogs? Herpetofauna 33: 13-15. Lemckert F. (2004). The biology and conservation status of the heath frog (Litoria littlejohni). Herpetofauna 34 (2): 99-104. Lemckert, F. and Shoulder, J. (2007). The diets of three sympatric barred river frogs (Anura: Myobatrachidae) from southeastern Australia. Herpetological Reveiw 38 (2): 152-154. Lemckert, F.L., Brassil, T. and McCray, K. (1998). Recent records of the giant burrowing frog (Heleioporus australiacus) from the far south coast of NSW. Herpetofauna 28 (1): 32-39. Lemckert, F.L., Brassil, T.E. and Towerton, A. (2005). Native vegetation corridors in exotic pine plantations provide long-term habitat for frogs. Ecological Management and Restoration 6 (2): 132-134. Lemckert, F., Law, B., Anderson, J. and Chidel, M. (1995). A further south-western range extension of the broad-palmed frog Litoria latopalmata. Herpetofauna 25 (2): 12-13. Lemckert, F., Lemckert, G., Lemckert, C., and Lemckert F. (2007). An observation of probable predation of a northern leaf-tailed gecko by a green catbird. Herpetofauna Lemckert, F., Potter, M., Smith, B. and Bruest, T. (1997). Recent records of the southern barred frog (Mixophyes balbus) from the south coast of NSW. Herpetofauna 27 (1): 60-62. Penman, T. D. and Lemckert, F. (2007). Heleioporus australiacus Predation. Herpetological Review 38 (2): 185-186. Penman, T., Lemckert, F., and Mahony, M., (2005). A cost-benefit analysis of automated call recorders. Applied Herpetology 2 (4): 389-400.

Towerton, A. and Lemckert, F. (2001). A note on two predation events of the giant burrowing frog, Heleioporus australiacus. Herpetofauna 31 (1): 34-36.

Magazine Articles Lemckert, F. (2001). Digging up the dirt on the giant burrowing frog. Australian Nature 27 (2): 26-33. (Spring 2001 issue) Lemckert, F. (2002). The frog with the midas looks. Australian Nature 27 (4): 62-69. (Autumn 2002 issue). Lemckert, F. (2003). Tonight’s the night – the life of a Green-thighed Frog. Australian Nature 27 (11): 24-25. (Summer 2003-2004 issue) Lemckert, F.L. (1999). Ethics and wildlife surveys in State Forests of NSW. ANZCAART News 12 (3): 8.

INTERNET PUBLICATIONS Co-author for eight frog information profiles listed on the IUCN GAA and AmphibiaWeb at Berkeley in California, USA. http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/aw/. Author or co-author of frog information profiles for the Australian Biological Resources Study: Adelotus brevis, Assa darlingtoni, Crinia signifera, Heleioporus australiacus, Litoria subglandulosa and Mixophyes balbus.

Animal Care and Ethics Committees. Article for the World Wide Fund for Nature Frogs. Website. http://www.frogs.wwf.org.au/. Profiles for the Arkive online fauna database: Litoria aurea and Mixophyes balbus. See http://www.arkive.org/species/GES/amphibians/.

UNPUBLISHED REPORTS Kavanagh, R., Law, B., Lemckert, F., Stanton, M., Chidel, M., Brassil, T., Towerton, A. and Herring, M. (2004). Biodiversity in eucalypt plantings established to reduce salinity. Report to the Joint Venture Agroforestry Program, RIRDC/Land and Water Australia/FWPRDC/MDBC, Canberra. Published as RIRDC Report No. 05/165. http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/AFT/05- 165.pdf Lemckert, F. L., J. Shields and E. Kemmerer. (1993). Fauna report on the flora and fauna survey for the proposed Kaluru Seed Orchard. Report for Softwoods region, State Forests of New South Wales. Lemckert, F. L. (1994). Report on the Wallum Froglet (Crinia tinnula) in the Bulahdelah Management Area. Report for Bulahdelah District, State Forests of NSW. Lemckert, F. L., M. Mahony, and C. Slatyer. (1997). Biological Study of the Green-thighed Frog in the Bulahdelah Region. Unpublished Report to the RTA and NSW NPWS. Lemckert, F. L. (1997) Survey report for the red-crowned toadlet at Allambie Heights, NSW. Unpublished report for the CSIRO. Lemckert, F. L. (1998) Survey report for the green and golden bell frog at Badgerys Creek, NSW. Unpublished report for Biosis Pty. Ltd. Kavanagh, R., Law, B. Lemckert, F., Stanton, M., Chidel, M., Brassil, T., Towerton, A. and Herring, M. (2004). Biodiversity in eucalypt plantings established to reduce salinity. Final Report to RIRDC. Project No.SFN-3A

PRESENTED PAPERS 1990: F. L. Lemckert. "The reproductive season and reproductive strategies in a population of the common eastern froglet (Crinia signifera)." Australian Society of Herpetologists Annual Scientific Meeting - Gemini Downs, South Australia. 1992: F. L. Lemckert. "Current and future endangered fauna legislation in N.S.W." Spoken presentation at the Australian Society of Herpetologists A.S.M. - Camden, NSW. 1993: F. L. Lemckert. “Effects of forestry operations on herpetofaunal assemblages in three state forest areas of New South Wales." Poster presentation at the 2nd World Congress of Herpetology - Adelaide, Australia. 1994: F. Lemckert. “Assessment of the impacts of forestry operations on reptile biodiversity in the Warung Management Area, NSW, and the implications for conservation and sustainable management.” Poster presentation at Conserving Biological Diversity in Temperate Forest Ecosystems - Towards Sustainable Management. - Canberra, Australia. 1994: R. Goldingay, G. Daly and F. Lemckert. “Assessment of the impacts of forestry operations on reptile biodiversity in the Queanbeyan/Badga Management Area, NSW, and the implications for conservation and sustainable management.” Poster presentation at Conserving Biological Diversity in Temperate Forest Ecosystems - Towards Sustainable Management. - Canberra, Australia. 1995: F. Lemckert. “Surveys for the Green and Golden Bell Frog, Litoria aurea, by the State Forests of New South Wales.” Spoken presentation at Biology of the Green and Golden Bell Frog. Workshop at the Australian Museum. - Sydney, Australia.

1995: F. Lemckert. “Survey of frogs in the Dorrigo area of NSW and the possible impacts of forestry operations.” Spoken presentation at the Australian Society of Herpetologists A.S.M. Laurel Hill, NSW. 1995: F. Lemckert. “An assessment of the impacts of logging operations on frogs.” Spoken presentation at the Ecological Society of Australia Conference. - Hobart, Tasmania. 1996: F. Lemckert. “Influence of habitat variables on frog communities in northern New South Wales.” Spoken presentation at the Australian Society of Herpetologists A.S.M. Wellington Mills, WA. 1997: F. Lemckert. “Impacts of fire and logging on the hip-pocket frog (Assa darlingtoni).” Poster presentation at the Australian National Threatened Frog Workshop. Canberra, Australia. 1998: F. Lemckert and C. Slatyer. Surveying for the green-thighed frog: How to ruin a good new year. Spoken presentation at the Australian Society of Herpetologists A.S.M. Atherton, Qld. 1999: F. Lemckert and T. Brassil. Make up your mind! - Movements of the giant burrowing frog, Heleioporus australiacus. Spoken presentation at the Australian Society of Herpetologists A.S.M. Alice Springs, NT. 1999: F. Lemckert and T. Brassil. Lounge Lizards? – Short term movements of the giant barred frog, Mixophyes iteratus. Poster presentation at the Australian Society of Herpetologists A.S.M. Alice Springs, NT. 2001: F. Lemckert. Rare, medium or well done: The impacts of fire on frog populations at Dorrigo. Spoken presentation at the Australian Society of Herpetologists A.S.M. Little Swanport, Tas. 2001: Francis Lemckert and Traecey Brassil. Long-term survivorship of frog populations in corridors of native vegetation within a pine plantation. Poster presentation at the Australian Society of Herpetologists A.S.M. Little Swanport, Tas. 2001: F. Lemckert. Rare, medium or well done: The impacts of fire on frog populations at Dorrigo. Invited spoken presentation at the 4th World Congress of Herpetology, Colombo, Sri Lanka. 2001: Francis Lemckert. Frog habitat use patterns and conservation in forests. Invited spoken presentation at the 4th World Congress of Herpetology, Colombo, Sri Lanka. 2002: Francis Lemckert. Frog habitat use patterns and conservation in forests. Spoken presentation at the “Declining Frog” Satellite Symposium (with ESA Conference) Cairns, Qld. 2002: Francis Lemckert. How rare is the Heath Frog, Litoria littlejohni? Spoken presentation at the Australian Society of Herpetologists A.S.M. Birrigai, ACT. 2003: Francis Lemckert. What makes a good frog pond? Spoken presentation at the Australian Society of Herpetologists A.S.M. Mary River, NT. 2005: Francis Lemckert. Plantations do not make good habitat for herps. Spoken presentation at the Australian Society of Herpetologists A.S.M. Springbrook, Qld. 2005: Francis Lemckert. Plantations do not make good habitat for herpetofuana. Poster presentation at the 5th World Congress of Herpetology, Stellenbosch, South Africa. 2005: Francis Lemckert and Michael Mahony. Frog pond communities from southeastern Australia are stable over time. Spoken presentation at the 5th World Congress of Herpetology. Stellenbosch, South Africa. 2005: Trent Penman, Francis Lemckert and Michael Mahony. Conservation biology of the giant burrowing frog (Heleioporus australiacus) in south-eastern Australia. Spoken presentation at the 5th World Congress of Herpetology. Stellenbosch, South Africa. 2006: Lemckert, F., Rosauer, D. and Slatyer, C. How well represented are our frogs in the reserve system? Spoken presentation at the Australian Society of Herpetologists A.S.M. Healesville, Victoria.

2007: Lemckert, F., Rosauer, D. and Slatyer, C. How well represented are our frogs in the reserve system? Spoken presentation at the Biodiversity Extinction Crisis Conference: A Pacific Response. Sydney, NSW. 2007: Lemckert, F. and Mahony, M. Frogs Ponds II – to frog ponder? Spoken presentation at the Australian Society of Herpetologists A.S.M. Albany, Western Australia.

REVIEWED JOURNALS Journal of Herpetology, Herpetological Review, Hepetologica, Acta Zoologica Sinica, Pacific Conservation Biology, Biological Conservation, Forest Ecology and Management, Austral Ecology, Applied Herpetology, Wildlife Research, Australian Zoologist, Herpetofauna, Phyllomedusa, Ecological Applications.

SOCIETY MEMBERSHIPS • Frog and Tadpole Study Group of NSW • Australian Society of Herpetologists – State Co-Ordinator • Royal Zoological Society of NSW • Australasian Wildlife Management Society