APPENDIX 11 ARROW LNG PLANT Terrestrial Ecology Supplementary EIS Study
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
APPENDIX 11 ARROW LNG PLANT Terrestrial Ecology Supplementary EIS Study Arrow Curtis Island LNG Facility Terrestrial Ecology Supplementary EIS Study and Gap Analysis Prepared by 3d Environmental / Ecosmart Ecology For Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd Final: December 10, 2012. f o NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS REPORT Purpose of the report: 3D Environmental has produced this report in its capacity as {consultants} for and on the request of Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd (the "Client"). The information and any recommendations in this report are particular to the Specified Purpose and are based on facts, matters and circumstances particular to the subject matter of the report and the Specified Purpose at the time of production. This report is not to be used, nor is it suitable, for any purpose other than the Specified Purpose. 3D Environmental disclaims all liability for any loss and/or damage whatsoever arising either directly or indirectly as a result of any application, use or reliance upon the report for any purpose other than the Specified Purpose. Whilst 3D Environmental believes all the information in it is deemed reliable at the time of publication, it does not warrant its accuracy or completeness. To the full extent allowed by law, 3D Environmental excludes liability in contract, tort or otherwise, for any loss or damage sustained by any person or body corporate arising from or in connection with the supply or use of the whole or any part of the information in this report through any cause whatsoever. 2 Executive Summary Arrow CSG (Australia) Pty Ltd (Arrow Energy) proposes to develop a liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant on Curtis Island off the central Queensland coast, near Gladstone. The project, known as the Arrow LNG Plant, is a component of the larger Arrow LNG Project, which incorporates the upstream coal seam gas field developments and transmission gas pipelines. 3D Environmental has been contracted to undertake flora and fauna assessment works as a supplement to the environmental impact statement (EIS) technical study report prepared by Ecosure (2011), and the resultant EIS chapter and matters of national environmental significance (MNES) attachment. The supplementary works include a review of previous ecological studies and analysis of additional information requirements, review of project description, particularly footprint changes, plus further desktop assessment. These works have been used to target field survey to further define impacts to a range of listed fauna and flora species, ecological communities and regional ecosystems. Review of floristic resources identified a number of additional information requirements although these were typically minor in nature. Desktop analysis identified 16 listed flora species potentially relevant to the project that have not been assessed in initial EIS studies. The inclusion of these species in the supplementary assessment is attributed largely to an increase in the search area buffer utilised from 30 km to 50 km, however, none of these additional species are considered likely to be impacted by project activities. Floristic field survey assessed a number of mainland sites including TWAF 8, TWAF 7, Red Rover Road site, the mainland tunnel launch site, launch site 1, and the Curtis Island LNG plant site. A total of 45 floristic survey sites were established across these areas, mainly to assess the consistency and accuracy of EIS regional ecosystem (RE) mapping as well as undertake additional searches for significant flora species, particularly in areas where the project footprint has been modified. Although no significant flora species were identified during this survey, a number of inconsistencies in existing vegetation mapping were identified including an area of previously unrecognised RE 12.3.3 (listed as ‘endangered’ under schedules of the Vegetation Management Regulation 2012 (Qld) (VM Reg)) at the mainland tunnel launch site plus a small patch of unmapped littoral vine thicket (listed as ‘critically endangered’ under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth) (EPBC Act)) on the Curtis Island site to the northeast of Boatshed Point. Project vegetation mapping has been updated to reflect these changes and the calculated clearing impacts to vegetation have been updated. Updates to vegetation mapping include: Reclassification of RE 11.3.4 (of concern VM Act status) as RE 12.3.3 and 12.3.3a at the mainland tunnel launch site. Based on revised vegetation mapping and reconfiguration of the project site layout, it is calculated that 39.72 ha of RE 12.3.3 will be impacted by the project compared to 25.69 ha that was assessed as subject to impact in t he EIS assessment. A subsequent reduction in the extent of RE 11.3.4 to be impacted from 40.1 ha to 23.91 ha is also calculated. 3 A broad gravel beach ridge was identified on Curtis Island to the east of Boatshed Point resulting in the delineation of approximately 0.9 ha of RE 12.2.11 (least concern VM Act status) and an additional 0.20 ha of RE 12.2.2 (critically endangered EPBC Act). No impacts to these habitats are expected, forming a component of a retained habitat buffer. RE 12.11.7 (least concern VM Act status) has been separated from RE 12.11.14 (of concern VM Act status) on the upper slopes of the Curtis Island site with a revised assessment of 105.17 ha of RE 12.11.14 to be cleared compared to 109.43 ha calculated during the EIS assessment. It should be noted that although these are relatively minor adjustments to the proportions of REs being impacted, these adjustments will require consideration in th e project environmental offset plan. The brief for the additional terrestrial ecology for the Arrow LNG Plant Supplementary Report to the EIS (SREIS) identified additional work required in the fauna survey effort due largely to a lack of wet season survey effort and systematic trapping for listed species. A significant number of additional information requirements were identified in supplementary fauna assessments consistent with the brief, and hence much more substantial desktop analysis and field survey were undertaken. The requirements for additional information gathering are due to a lack of field survey data collected in the warmer summer months (due to surveys planned at this time being cancelled due to adverse weather conditions), lack of systematic trapping utilising a range of techniques targeted towards individual fauna species listed as 'endangered‘,'vulnerable‘ or 'near-threatened‘ (EVNT) by state and/or Australian government legislation or regulation, and limited trapping effort for water mouse, an EPBC-listed ‘vulnerable’species. Whilst a number of these species may be targeted during future survey, water mouse was subject to intensive survey effort, both on the mainland and Curtis Island sites. Whilst the species was not trapped during the 620 trap nights undertaken as part of this survey, active nesting sites, tree hollows and feeding/foraging signs confirmed the presence of the species adjacent to the project site, particularly in littoral habitats fringing Boatshed Point. Project development activities will disturb a small area of water mouse habitat (0.79 ha of mangrove RE 12.1.3) to the west of Boatshed Point and project activities may isolate a sub-population of the species in this location. Due to the broader extent of suitable habitat in region, any localised reduction in the occupancy of the species at this location is not considered significant and will not threaten survival of the species. The significance of cumulative impact to the species, arising from the combined impact of a range of industrial development projects in the region (including LNG projects), is potentially high. Other species that are subject to p otential project impacts include koala (listed as ‘vulnerable‘ under the EPBC Act and th e Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld)(NC Act)) and powerful owl (vulnerable, NC Act). Due to the local rarity of koalas in the study area, the potential impact of the project is considered to be of low magnitude and not a threat to the survival of the species. While clearing for infrastructure is irreversible, it is questionable that the lost vegetation is regularly inhabited by koala. Imp acts therefore are unlikely to a ffect the abundance or distribution of the 4 species. Areas of habitat where the species is more common (i.e., on the sub-coastal slopes and ranges) will not be affected. Powerful owl has been frequently recorded in the study area during previous (not Arrow related) ecological surveys and the potential magnitude of project related impacts to the species is considered moderate. Further field survey effort is however required to clarify the nature and severity of impacts to both koala and powerful owl. Project-related impact to migratory wader species species have not been assessed in this report as they are assessed in a separate study undertaken for the SREIS. 5 6 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................7 GLOSSARY .....................................................................................................................11 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................21 1.1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................21