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.

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:

 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

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.

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 7 GLOSSARY ...... 11

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 21

1.1 BACKGROUND ...... 21 1.2 STUDY AIMS ...... 22

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION CHANGES/REVIEW OF DATA ...... 23

2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION CHANGES ...... 23 2.2 REVIEW OF EIS DATA ...... 24 2.2.1 Approach to Review of EIS ...... 24 2.2.2 Previous Survey Effort ...... 27 2.2.3 Identified Additional Information Requirements ...... 28

3.0 LEGISLATIVE/ POLICY CONTEXT ...... 31

4.0 METHODS ...... 33

4.1 LITERATURE AND DATABASE REVIEW ...... 33 4.1.1 Flora ...... 33 4.1.2 Fauna ...... 34 4.2 FIELD SURVEY ...... 35 4.2.1 Floristic Survey ...... 35 4.2.2 Fauna Field Survey ...... 38 4.3 SURVEY CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS ...... 42 4.3.1 Conditions ...... 42 4.3.2 Limitations ...... 42 4.4 APPROACH TO IMPACT ASSESSMENT...... 43 4.4.1 Sensitivity of Ecological Values ...... 43 4.4.2 Assessment of Impact Magnitude ...... 45 4.4.3 Impact Significance Assessment ...... 45 4.4.4 Residual Impact Significance Estimation ...... 47

5.0 SURVEY RESULTS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 47

5.1 FLORISTIC ASSESSMENT ...... 47 5.1.1 Threatened Ecological Communities and Regional Ecosystems ...... 47 5.1.2 Regional Ecosystems ...... 51 5.1.3 Threatened Species ...... 51 5.2 FAUNA ASSESSMENT ...... 63 5.3 FAUNA PROFILES ...... 80 5.3.1 Brigalow Scaly-foot (Paradelma orientalis) ...... 80 5.3.2 Black-necked Stork (Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus) ...... 86 5.3.3 Grey Goshawk (Accipiter novahollandiae) ...... 89 7

5.3.4 Square-tailed Kite (Lophoictinia isura) ...... 92 5.3.5 Glossy Black-cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami) ...... 95 5.3.6 Squatter Pigeon (Geophaps scripta scripta) ...... 99 5.3.7 Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) ...... 104 5.3.8 Grey-headed Flying-Fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) ...... 109 5.3.9 Little Pied Bat (Chalinolobus picatus) ...... 114 5.3.10 Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) ...... 118 5.3.11 Water Mouse (Xeromys myoides) ...... 123 5.4 ESSENTIAL HABITAT MAPPING ...... 134 5.4.1 Curtis Island Site ...... 134 5.4.2 Launch Site 1 ...... 135 5.4.3 Red Rover Road Site ...... 135 5.4.4 Mainland tunnel launch site ...... 135 5.4.5 TWAF 7 ...... 135 5.4.6 TWAF 8 ...... 135 5.5 SITE SPECIFIC ASSESSMENTS ...... 138 5.5.1 Mainland Tunnel Launch Site (Both Cases) ...... 138 5.5.2 TWAF 8 (Alternative Case) ...... 142 5.5.3 Red Rover Road Site (Alternative Case) ...... 144 5.5.4 Launch Site 1 (Both Cases) ...... 147 5.5.5 Curtis Island Site (Both Cases) ...... 149 5.5.6 TWAF 7 (Base Case) ...... 153 5.6 GROUNDWATER DEPENDENT ECOSYSTEMS ...... 153

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS ...... 157

7.0 REFERENCES ...... 159

8.0 APPENDICES ...... 167

APPENDIX A: FLORISTIC SITE DATA ...... 169 APPENDIX B: SURVEY FLORA SPECIES LIST ...... 177 APPENDIX C: VERTEBRATE SPECIES LIST ...... 205 APPENDIX D. EPBC SEARCH (50 KM BUFFER) ...... 223

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Site Layout...... 26

Figure 2. Floristic survey locations ...... 37

Figure 3. Water Mouse Trap Site Locations and Tracks...... 41

Figure 4. Threatened species locations in the region under the NC Act...... 52

Figure 5. EPBC Act listed flora species records in the regional area...... 53

Figure 6. Potential brigalow scaly-foot habitat and species records...... 82

Figure 7. Recent (1990+) black-necked stork records and potential habitats...... 88

Figure 8. Local records and potential habitat of grey goshawk...... 91

Figure 9. Recent (1990+) records of square tailed kite and potential habitat in the project area...... 94

Figure 10. Recent (1990+) records of glossy black-cockatoo within the local area...... 98

Figure 11. Recent (1990+) squatter pigeon records and possible habitat...... 101

Figure 12. Recent (1990+) records of powerful owl within the local area...... 106

Figure 13. Grey-headed flying-fox records and possible forage habitat...... 111

Figure 14. Local records and suitable habitat for little pied bat ...... 117

Figure 15. Possible habitat for koala in the project area...... 121

Figure 16. Potential habitat and recent (1990+) survey records of water mouse...... 126

Figure 17. Essential habitat in the project area...... 137

Figure 18. Survey site locations and revised mapping at the mainland tunnel launch site...... 141

Figure 19. Survey site locations at TWAF 8 relative to regional ecosystem mapping...... 143

Figure 20. Revised mapping at Red Rover Road site...... 146

Figure 21. Location of survey sites on Curtis Island over the revised RE mapping...... 152

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Previous survey effort...... 27

Table 2. Identified terrestrial ecology additional information requirements...... 29

Table 3. Database sources relevant to floristic assessment...... 33

Table 4. Database sources used in this assessment ...... 34

Table 5. Summary of floristic survey sites undertaken during supplementary works...... 38

Table 6. Sensitivity ranking definitions...... 44

Table 7. Impact Magnitude Ranking Definitions ...... 45

Table 8. Matrix for the assessment of the significance of an ecological impact...... 46

Table 9. Impact significance ranking definitions ...... 46

Table 10. Significance of impact to the littoral vine thicket ecological community under MNES referral guidelines...... 49

Table 11. Summary of threatened species identified in desktop review...... 54

Table 12. Likelihood evaluation of EVNT vertebrates ...... 64

Table 13. Project-related clearing* of brigalow scaly-foot habitats (‘base case’and ‘both case’ only as discussed in Section 5.5)...... 83

Table 14. Evaluation of impact significance for brigalow scaly-foot under MNES Guidelines...... 85

Table 15. Project related clearing* of grey goshawk habitats (‘base case’and ‘both case’only as per Section 5.5)...... 90

Table 16. Assessment of squatter pigeon under MNES referral guidelines...... 103

Table 17. Assessment of grey headed flying fox under MNES referral guidelines...... 113

Table 18. Assessment of koala under MNES referral guidelines...... 122

Table 19. Assessment of water mouse under MNES referral guidelines...... 133

Table 20. Impacts to REs at the mainland tunnel launch site...... 139

Table 21. Project related clearing impacts at TWAF 8...... 144

Table 22. Vegetation clearing impacts for the Red Rover Road site...... 145

Table 23. Vegetation clearing impacts for the launch site 1...... 149

Table 24. Revised clearing impacts for the Curtis Island site (includes LNG Jetty, HDD construction yard and GAWB corridor to north of HDD construction yard)...... 151

Glossary

Term Definition abiotic Pertaining to physical and inorganic components of the environment. alluvial Sediments deposited by flowing water. alluvium A general term for unconsolidated deposits of inorganic materials (clay, silt, sand, gravel, boulders) deposited by flowing water. arboreal Relating to or moving within a tree (refering to fauna) basal area A measure of the total cross-section area of stems at breast height (1.3 metres above the ground). base flow (stream) Groundwater discharge into a stream providing sustained stream flow. benchmark A description of a regional ecosystem that represents the median characteristics of a mature and relatively undisturbed ecosystem of the same type (Eyre et al., 2006). biodiversity The biological diversity of life is commonly regarded as being made up of the following three components: • Genetic diversity – the variety of genes (or units of heredity) in any population; • Species diversity – the variety of species; • Ecosystem diversity – the variety of communities or ecosystems. biodiversity significance The ranked significance of an area according to specified biodiversity values to account for ecological concepts such as rarity, diversity, fragmentation, habitat condition, resilience, threats, and ecosystem processes. Biodiversity Planning Assessments identify three levels of biodiversity significance – state, regional and local –based on a number of data queries that simultaneously integrate an array of information for a bioregion. They may also indicate areas that have not been assigned a biodiversity significance because they have not met the criteria for state, regional or local significance based on current information (EPA, 2002). biodiversity status The status for regional ecosystems applied to gas and petroleum act activities, rather than the Vegetation Management act status. bioregion (biogeographical Queensland is divided into 13 bioregions based on broad landscape region) patterns that reflect the major underlying geology, climate patterns and broad groupings of plants and animals. Also defined in a national system of regionalisation by Thackway & Creswell (1995). (adapted from Sattler and Williams 1999). Bitterlich Stick A gauge used to measure the basal area in a vegetation habitat in m2. braun-blanquet (method) A method of describing an area of vegetation devised by J. Braun-Blanquet in 1927. It is used for rapid survey of large areas. It uses two scales consisting of a plus sign and a series of numbers from 1 to 5 denoting both the numbers of species and the proportion of the area covered by that species. Brigalow belt A bioregion that spans inland and eastern Queensland from Townsville in the north to northern New South Wales, covering an area of about six million hectares. canopy Defined in Beadle and Costin (1952) as a cover of foliage formed either by the community as a whole or by one of its component layers. It ma y be continuous or discontinuous (Neldner et al. 2005).

Term Definition crepuscular Pertaining to a species that is active in twilight. critically endangered Designated as ‘critically endangered’ under the EPBC Act. Refer to definition of ‘EPBC Act conservation status’ for meaning of critically endangered under the Act. crown cover The percentage of the sample site occupied by the vertical projection of the periphery of the tree crowns. Crowns are treated as opaque (Neldner et al., 2005). declared pests An animal or pla nt may be dec lared under the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002. disturbance The physical displacement of existing features that leads to impacts. ecological community An assemblage of species occupying a particular area. ecological condition The health/condition of an ecological community, as assessed against the following criteria: • Disturbance (whether this be natural or human) including its degree or severity, its extent and distribution within the community; • Weed content — description of species abundance, horizontal and vertical distribution of each species; • Ecological viability — measure of a community's ability to survive in the longer term; • Ecological health — measure of regeneration, size structure and number of dead or dying plants within a community; • Ecological relationships — the sequential relationship of one community to another. edaphic Factors relating to conditions of soil or earth. endangered Under the Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992, a s pecies may be classified as ‘endangered‘ if: (a) There have not been thorough searches conducted for the wildlife and the wildlife has not been seen in the wild over a period that is appropriate for the life cycle or form of the wildlife; or (b) the habitat or dis tribution of the wildlife has been reduced to an extent that the wildlife may be in danger of extinction; or (c) the population size of the wildlife has declined, or is likely to decline, to an extent that the wildlife may be in danger of extinction; or (d) the survival of the wildlife in the wild is unlikely if a threatening process continues. Under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, a species may be classified as endangered if: (a) it is not ‘critically endangered‘; and (b) it is facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future, as determined in accordance with the prescribed criteria. endemic Taxon that has at least 75 % of its known range within a bioregion or which has a total range of 100,000 km2 or less (Commonwealth of Australia 1995) (EPA, 2002). environmental offset An action taken to counter-balance any unavoidable negative impacts that might result from an activity or a development.

Term Definition environmental weed A plant that invades native plant communities (it may also invade farmland and urban areas) and which may hinder the survival and regeneration of native vegetation, thus affecting native fauna and, in some cases, permanently altering both vegetation structure and composition. Most environmental weeds are exotic plants, however there is a significant, and increasing, number of Australian plant species that are causing problems outside their normal range. EPBC Act conservation status Under the EPBC Act 1999, listed threatened species and ecological communities are assigned a c onservation status of ‘extinct in the wild’, ‘critically endangered’, ‘endangered’ or ‘vulnerable’. Definitions of these terms under the EPBC Act are as follows: Extinct in the wild • Known only to survive in cultivation, in captivity or as a naturalized population well outside its past range’; or • Not been recorded in its known and/or expected habitat, at appropriate seasons, anywhere in its past range, despite exhaustive surveys over a time frame appropriate to its life cycle and form. Critically endangered • Facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future, as determined in accordance with the prescribed criteria. Endangered • Not ‘critically endangered’; and • Facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future, as determined in accordance with the prescribed criteria. Vulnerable • Not ‘critically endangered’ or ‘endangered’; and • Facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future, as determined in accordance with the prescribed criteria. ephemeral stream A stream that flows periodically in response to rainfall and has no baseflow components. erosion The wearing away of rock or soil caused by physical or chemical processes. essential habitat An area identified for a species of wildlife listed as endangered, vulnerable, or near threatened under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 on a map prepared by the chief executive officer of the DEHP and certified by the chief executive officer of the DEHP for the purposes of the Vegetation Management Act 1999. EVNT species or taxon/taxa A species of wildlife listed as ‚‘endangered‘, ‘vulnerable, or ‘near threatened‘ under the Nature Conservation Act 1992, and/or under the EPBC Act 1999, as ‘extinct in the wild’, ‘critically endangered’, ‘endangered’ or ‘vulnerable’. extirpate Localised extinction of a species. fossorial Refers to a fauna species with ground dwelling habit. grey literature Non peer reviewed scientific articles. groundwater Subsurface water, generally saturating the soil or rock in which it occurs. habitat An area or areas permanently, periodically or oc casionally occupied by a species, population or ecological community, including any and all biotic and abiotic features of the area or areas occupied.

Term Definition heterogeneous RE polygon An area (polygon) delineated on a m ap of regional ecosystems (REs) comprising a mixture of RE types. homogeneous RE polygon An area (polygon) delineated on a m ap of regional ecosystems (REs) comprising a single RE. impact Any event or series of events that disrupt ecosystem, community, or population structure and alter the physical environment, directly or indirectly. individual A genetically discrete organism (within the genetic and morphological confines of a species, subspecies or variety) that has arisen from sexual reproduction, viz. a seed. It should be noted that for plants, many ‘individuals’ are genetically indistinguishable due to inbreeding and the accumulation of similar genes or the mode of seed . Insectivorous An organism that feeds on insects intermittent stream A stream which carries water through most of the annual cycle but stops flow periodically in response to seepage or excessive evapotranspiration. land degradation Land degradation includes the following: • Soil erosion; • Rising water tables; • The expression of salinity; • Mass movement by gravity of soil and rock; • Stream bank instability; and • Process that results in declining water quality. land zones Land zones represent major differences in geology and in the associated landforms, soils, and physical processes that gave rise to distinctive landforms or continue to shape them (Sattler and Williams 1999). Land zones are generally derived by amalgamating a range of geological, land system and/or soil mapping units at 1:100,000 to 1:250,000 scale. Twelve land zone classes have been defined for Queensland and are numbered from 1-12. Matters of National Those areas, places, species, communities or ac tivities listed in Part 3 of Environmental Significance EPBC Act as Matters of National Environmental Significance. These are: (NES) • World Heritage properties; • National heritage; • Wetlands listed as Ramsar wetlands of international importance; • Threatened species and communities listed under the EPBC Act (note that these species may not be the same as those listed under state legislation); • Migratory species listed under the EPBC Act (these are migratory species protected under international agreements); • Nuclear actions, including uranium mining; • The marine environment (which for the purposes of the Commonwealth is generally Australian waters beyond the 3 nautical mile limit of state waters; and • Any other matter prescribed by regulation. metapopulation One to many subpopulations (geographically contiguous or disjunct) that share genetic connectivity. The ultimate aim of conservation biology is to conserve the different subpopulations and genetic variation (total taxon variation and subpopulation variation). The greater the genetic variation within a taxon or subpopulation, then the greater potential exists for ‘adaptation’ in response to stochastic events (i.e. climate change). A subpopulation may consist of one to many individuals of a species, subspecies or variety (collectively taxon). A taxon may comprise one to many metapopulations. 14

Term Definition migratory species An animal that periodically or occasionally migrates to, or visits, Australia. native (flora) The definition of native plants is based on that provided in Bostock and Holland (2010). This is plant taxa that have evolved in Queensland unaided by human intervention, or have migrated to and persist in Queensland unaided by human intervention. This does not include taxa that are naturalised to Queensland or a particular bioregion. Bostock and Holland (2007) lists plant taxa that are accepted as native to Queensland (adapted from Neldner et al., 2005). naturalised The definition of naturalised plants or vegetation is based on that provided in Bostock and Holland (2010). This is plant taxa that have originated outside Queensland or a bioregion that have been introduced to Queensland or a bioregion by or with the help of humans intervention, and persist there unaided by human intervention. Bostock and Holland (2010) lists plant taxa that are naturalised in Queensland or particular pastoral districts (adapted from Neldner et al., 2005). NC Act 1992 conservation Under the NC Act, protected species are assigned a conservation status of status ‘extinct in the wild’, ‘endangered’, ‘vulnerable’, ‘near threatened’, or ‘least concern’. Definitions of these terms under the NC Act are as follows: Extinct in the wild • There have been thorough searches conducted for the wildlife; and • It has not been seen in the wild over a period that is appropriate for the life cycle or form of the wildlife. Endangered • There have not been thorough searches conducted for the wildlife and the wildlife has not been seen in the wild over a period that is appropriate for the life cycle or form of the wildlife; or • The habitat or distribution of the wildlife has been reduced to an extent that the wildlife may be in danger of extinction; or • The population size of the wildlife has declined, or is likely to decline, to an extent that the wildlife may be in danger of extinction; or • The survival of the wildlife in the wild is unlikely if a threatening process continues. Vulnerable

• Its population is decreasing because of threatening processes; or • Its population has been seriously depleted and its protection is not secured; or • Its population, while abundant, is at risk because of threatening processes; or • Its population is low or localised or depends on limited habitat that is at risk because of threatening processes. Near threatened • The population size or distribution of the wildlife is small and may become smaller; or • The population size of the wildlife has declined, or is likely to decline, at a rate higher than the usual rate for population changes for the wildlife; or • The survival of the wildlife in the wild is affected to an extent that the wildlife is in danger of becoming ‘vulnerable’.

Term Definition

Least concern • The wildlife is common or abundant and is likely to survive in the wild. Native wildlife may be prescribed as ‘least concern’ wildlife even if; o The wildlife is the subject of a threatening process, or o The population size or distribution of the wildlife has declined, or o There is insufficient information about the wildlife to conclude whether the wildlife is common or abundant or likely to survive in the wild. near threatened Designated as ‘near threatened’ under the NC Act. Refer to definition of ‘NC Act conservation status’ above for meaning of near threatened. niche A term describing the relational position of a species or population in its ecosystem to each other. non-remnant vegetation All vegetation that is not mapped as remnant vegetation by DEHP and/or that fails to meet DEHP criteria for ‘remnant vegetation’. May include regrowth, heavily thinned or logged and significantly disturbed vegetation that fails to meet the structural and/ or floristic characteristics of remnant vegetation. It also includes urban and cropping land. Non-remnant vegetation may retain significant biodiversity values (Neldner et al. 2005). not of concern Designated as ‘not of concern’ under the VM Act. Refer to definition of ‘VM Act status’ for meaning of ‘not of concern’ under the Act. of concern Designated as ‘of concern’ under the VM Act. Refer to definition of ‘VM Act status’ for meaning of ‘of concern’ under the Act. palustrine Palustrine wetlands are primarily vegetated non-channel environments of less than eight hectares. They include billabongs, swamps, bogs, springs, soaks etc. perennial stream A watercourse or stream that maintains flow throughout the annual seasonal cycle perennial species Perennial species are long-lived plants, tending to persist for three or more years. Generally characterized by larger bulk than annual grasses i.e. forming tussocks and large root mass with evidence of previous seasons growth i.e. remains of last year’s tiller bases, and presence of stolons or rhizomes (or underground rooting systems) (Eyre et al., 2006). population In the absence of genetic data, disjunct locality records (those that are separated by areas of different habitat, i.e. Regional Ecosystems where the taxon is absent). A population may consist of one to many individuals. Greatly disjunct populations are inferred to harbour significant genetic variation due to historical patterns of genetic drift. A species, subspecies or variety that has population groups in e.g., the Wet Tropics and Border Ranges, would be inferred to comprise several metapopulations. quaternary site Quaternary site data are used primarily as a record of field traverses and to verify regional ecosystem/vegetation mapping. These sites are generally collected throughout the field survey and entered on spreadsheets or databases. Quaternary sites may be collected at regular intervals along a traverse, and/or made where REs/vegetation communities change. regional ecosystem (RE) A vegetation community, within a bioregion, that is consistently associated with a particular combination of geology, landform and soil. REs may be classified under schedules 1–3 of the Vegetation Management Regulation as either ‘endangered’, ‘of concern’ or ‘not of concern’. Refer to ‘VM Act conservation status’ for meaning of ‘ endangered’, of ‘c oncern’ or ‘n ot of concern’ under the VM Act.

Term Definition regrowth vegetation Non-remnant vegetation that has a significant woody component but fails to meet the structural and/or floristic characteristics of remnant vegetation. Includes vegetation that has regrown after clearing or been heavily thinned or logged and may retain significant biodiversity values. regrowth vegetation code Allows for regulation of the clearing of high value regrowth vegetation (HVR) defined as regrowth vegetation that has not been cleared post December 31, 1989. Exemptions to the code apply to clearing of regrowth vegetation for extractive industry within key resource areas, clearing for a number of prescribed land management practices (e.g. fencing or firebreaks) or for significant community projects. remnant vegetation (or Remnant vegetation for areas of woody vegetation where there is evidence remnant regional ecosystems) of past clearing. It follows that used in the Vegetation Management Act 1999 for areas for which no regional ecosystem or remnant vegetation cover mapping exists. Remnant woody vegetation is defined as vegetation where the dominant canopy has >70 % of the height and >50 % of the cover relative to the undisturbed height and cover of that stratum and is dominated by species characteristic of the vegetation’s undisturbed canopy (Neldner et al., 2005). runoff All surface flow from within a catchment. secondary site Vegetation survey sites used for classification and detailed descriptions of regional ecosystems and vegetation communities. Data collected include all location, environmental and overall structural information as well as a list of all species present and basal area (of woody stems using the Bitterlich stick method), percentage cover and stem density measures of abundance within a 50x10 m plot. senescing Reaching late maturity. site (survey) An area of vegetation with relatively uniform structure, floristics and geology where botanical data are collected such as primary, secondary, tertiary or quaternary sites. For trees, the site includes the area covered by a basal area sweep (Bitterlich stick or prism) (Neldner et al., 2005). stratum A layer in a community produced by the occurrence at approximately the same level (height) of an aggregation of plants of the same habit (Beadle and Costin 1952 in Neldner et al., 2005). stochastic A process involving a random set of variables interacting over time. structure The spatial arrangement of plants within a vegetation community (Beadle and Costin 1952 in Neldner et al., 2005). taxon (plural taxa) Any group or rank in a biological classification into which related organisms are classified (e.g. phylum, order, family, genus or species). tertiary site Vegetation survey sites used for classification and descriptions of regional ecosystems and vegetation communities. Data collected include all location, environmental and overall structural information as well as a comprehensive list of woody species and basal area measure of abundance (of woody stems using the Bitterlich stick method). Generally only the dominant or conspicuous species in the ground layer are recorded. threatened Used with reference to ecological communities, REs or species of that are endangered, vulnerable or of concern as listed under the NC Act, the VM Act or the EPBC Act (see NC Act conservation significance, the VM Act conservation significance and EPBC Ac t conservation significance for more details).

Term Definition threatened ecological Three categories exist for threatened ecological communities under the community Commonwealth Environment and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999: • Critically endangered: If, at that time, it is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future; • Endangered: If, at that time, it is not ‘critically endangered‘ and is facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future; and • Vulnerable: If, at that time, it is not ‘critically endangered‘ or ‘endangered‘, and is facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future. threatening process A threatening process is any process that is capable of: • Threatening the survival of sensitive areas including any protected area, area of major interest, protected wildlife, community of native wildlife or native wildlife habitat; or • Affecting the capacity of any protected area, area of major interest, protected wildlife, community of native wildlife or native wildlife habitat to sustain natural processes. traverse The route travelled by vehicle or on foot in the field. For determination of relative reliability it represents a record of where the surveyor has been and is an index to the amount of informal observations (Neldner et al., 2005). vegetation community A component of a regional ecosystem that has similar structure and floristics and generally occurs within the same land zone. These components of regional ecosystems are generally mappable at scales larger than 1:100,000. A number of vegetation communities may make up a single regional ecosystem, and is usually distinguished by differences in dominant species composition, frequently in the shrub or ground layers (Neldner et al., 2005). vegetation map A map whose primary purpose is to show the geographical distribution of the various vegetation types of a given area (Neldner et al., 2005). VM Act conservation status Under the VM Act, REs may be classified as either ‘endangered’, ‘of concern’ or ‘not of concern’. Definitions of these terms under the VM Act are: Endangered • Less than 10 % of pre-clearing extent of remnant vegetation (see following definition) exists in the bioregion, or 10 to 30 % of pre- clearing extent remains and the remnant vegetation is less than 10,000 hectares. In addition, for biodiversity planning purposes DEHP also classifies a regional ecosystem as endangered if; o Less than 10 % of its pre-clearing extent remains unaffected by severe degradation and/or biodiversity loss, or o 10-30 % of its pre-clearing extent remains unaffected by severe degradation, and/or o Biodiversity loss and the remnant vegetation is less than 10,000 hectares; or it is a rare regional ecosystem subject to a threatening process. Of concern • 10 to 30 % of pre-clearing extent of remnant vegetation exists in the bioregion, or more than 30 % of pre-clearing extent remains and the remnant vegetation is less than 10,000 ha. In addition, for biodiversity planning purposes DERM also classifies a regional ecosystem as of concern if; o 10-30 % of its pre-clearing extent remains unaffected by

Term Definition

moderate degradation and/or biodiversity loss. Not of concern • More than 30 % of pre-clearing extent of remnant vegetation exists in the bioregion, and it is greater than 10,000 ha. In addition, for biodiversity planning purposes DERM also classifies a regional ecosystem as not of concern if the degradation criteria listed above for endangered or of concern REs are not met. vulnerable Designated as ‘vulnerable’ under the EPBC Act and/or NC Act. Refer to definitions of ‘EPBC Act conservation status’ and ‘NC Act conservation status’ for meaning of ‘vulnerable’ under these acts. waterlogging The saturation of soil by soil water. watertable The surface in an unconfined aquifer or confining bed at which the pore water pressure is atmospheric. WildNet Queensland DEHP WildNet Database which contains recorded wildlife sightings and listings of plants, fungi, protists, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, freshwater fish, marine cartilaginous fish and butterflies in Queensland.

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

An environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared for the project under Part 4 of the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (Qld) (SDPWO Act) and s. 133 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth) (EPBC Act), to be assessed in accordance with the Bilateral Agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland relating to environmental assessment. Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd (Coffey Environments), a subsidiary of Coffey International Pty Ltd, was commissioned to assist Arrow Energy in the preparation of the Arrow LNG Plant EIS.

Previous ecological survey and reporting for the project has been undertaken by Ecosure (2011): Arrow LNG Plant: Terrestrial Ecology Impact Assessment. Due to project and environmental constraints, the requirement for additional information gathering arises due to insufficient survey effort for the water mouse (Xeromys myoides), which is listed as ´vulnerable’ under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth) (EPBC Act), and ‘migratory’ wader bird species, as well as insufficient field survey effort to adequately account for seasonal variation (i.e., modest wet season effort). There have also been a number of changes to the project description, including site and infrastructure layout (as detailed in Section 2.1) that has affected the final impact footprint and hence the area requiring ground survey. Hence, 3D Environmental has been contracted to undertake a supplementary ecological assessment work for the project to inform the Supplementary Report to the EIS (SREIS), which includes an assessment of both floristic and faunal values. EcoSmart Ecology has been sub-contracted to undertake works relating to assessment of fauna including, in particular, a targeted field survey for water mouse.

All short-duration surveys, as undertaken in this assessment, have inherent limitations. Furthermore, limitations may be imposed by climatic, logistical and/or budgetary constraints. As such, the identified additional information requirements in this report do not necessarily reflect the capability or skills of previous authors. The results of the assessment will be used to define recommendations for future field survey for the purpose of refining species habitat mapping and associated offset requirements as well as project mitigation measures and overall site management.

While this study considers and assesses water mouse, it does not address other marine or estuarine values including migratory waders, turtles, dugong, crocodiles, seagrass, etc, which are addressed in a separate shorebird, marine and estuarine ecology studies undertaken to inform the SREIS. Where 21

observations of these species were noted during our survey, these results have been included and may be incorporated into the separate studies.

1.2 Study Aims

Specifically, the aims of this terrestrial ecology study are:

 Review and compare project changes against the project description provided in Ecosure (2011) to establish if previous ecological studies and associated impact assessment has been sufficient to account for impact variation (i.e., any changes in residual impact to flora species, flora communities or fauna species and populations).

 Review previous studies (Ecosure 2011) and relevant EIS chapters against relevant submissions to the EIS (including comments from the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC)) and the EIS terms of reference (TOR) to identify areas where additional ecological information is required to inform the assessment.

 Evaluate the possibility of species listed as ´endangered’, ‘vulnerable’ or ‘near threatened’ (EVNT) under either the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld) (NC Act) or the EPBC Act occurring within the local area.

 Prepare dossiers on species that are known to occur or considered possibly occurring within the project area, with particular reference to the ‘Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 - Matters of National Environmental Significance’ (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA), 2009.

 Undertake targeted water mouse surveys within potential habitats near to the project area.

 Document areas where further ecological survey is required to inform the assessment. Once identified, the requirement for additional information will be evaluated as critical, high, moderate or low priority in regards to their impact on understanding existing ecological values and/or potentially risking project delivery.

2.0 Project Description Changes/Review of Data

2.1 Project Description Changes

Development associated with the proposed Arrow LNG Plant is located near Gladstone within the Southeast Queensland Bioregion. Development specifics are provided within the Arrow Energy EIS (Coffey Environments, 2012) and include:

 The Arrow LNG plant located to the east of North China Bay, at the southwestern end of Curtis Island, within the 1500 ha Curtis Industry Precinct of the Gladstone State Development Area (GSDA). Directly to the northwest, the site shares a border with the Santos LNG facility, and the QCLNG and APLNG projects are located immediately beyond this. The Arrow LNG Plant shares a common border with the Curtis Island Environmental Management Precinct of the GSDA, which lies to the north of the project site.

 A tunnel to cross Port Curtis, connecting the mainland tunnel launch site and tunnel spoil disposal area on the mainland (adjacent to Gladstone-Mount Larcom Road) to the receival shaft on Curtis Island, on Hamilton Point adjacent to the Arrow LNG plant.

 Several sites that provide potential locations for temporary workers’ accommodation facilities (TWAFs), or other infrastructure (such as laydown and staging areas) proposed on the mainland being;

o TWAF 8, located at the northern intersection of Forest and Targinie Roads adjacent to Targinie Creek.

o TWAF 7, located on the former Gladstone power station number 7 fly-ash pond, adjacent to Gladstone.

o A launch site (launch site 1) and access roads, located near the mouth of the Calliope River, on the eastern bank.

o A second, potential launch site (4N) is located to the north, at the northern extent of the Western Basin Reclamation Area, but would be on reclaimed land and is therefore out of the scope of the terrestrial ecology study.

The activities and footprint areas have been slightly modified since the release of the EIS and Ecosure’s ecology study. The majority of project modifications have little bearing on ecological values, however the following footprint changes have been incorporated into the updated project layout:

 The Arrow LNG plant layout has been modified to the extent that intertidal habitats on the northwestern fringes of Boatshed Point are included within the impact footprint. Minor changes to the impact footprint at the plant site in general are also considered including a horizontal directional drill easement (HDD) that connects the mainland tunnel launch site to Curtis Island via Hamilton Point. The infrastructure corridor on the northern side of 23

Hamilton Point will be in part on reclaimed land at North China Bay (see Section 6.4.8 of EIS).

 Launch site 1 has been extended, meaning the revised footprint will affect existing disturbed land with little ecological value.

 The footprint of the mainland tunnel launch site and tunnel spoil disposal area has been modified (a smaller footprint is required).

 The Red Rover Road staging and laydown area (approximately 39 ha) has been added to the project area.

These changes are minor and, for the large part, affect either existing cleared land (e.g., extension of launch site 1) or minor areas of disturbed remnant vegetation (e.g., Red Rover Road site). As such, any significant variation in flora and fauna impact is unlikely, with the extent and nature of habitats to be cleared varying slightly from the original proposal. The revised project area is provided in Figure 1.

2.2 Review of EIS Data

Additional information requirements identified from the Arrow LNG Plant EIS, for both flora and fauna, are detailed in following sections. The methodology for identifying additional information requirements relies upon a thorough review of the Arrow LNG Plant Terrestrial Ecology Impact Assessment (Ecosure, 2011), cross referenced to the project’s TOR.

2.2.1 Approach to Review of EIS Data

Flora Information contained within the Arrow LNG Plant EIS, specifically the Terrestrial Ecology Impact Assessment (Ecosure, 2011) was reviewed in relation to:

 The adequacy of the desktop review in terms of its ability to comprehensively account for all ecological values of consequence and potential consequence to the project.

 The adequacy of sampling effort in relation to the range of regional ecosystems (REs) and related vegetation communities identified in the project area.

 The classification of REs under the schedules of the VM Reg in relation to available survey site data.

 Critical areas that have not been adequately sampled, including those created by changes to the project footprint.

 High value habitats or ecosystems represented within the EIS that deviate significantly from existing mapping (DERM, 2009) where insufficient justification for the deviation is provided.

 Identification of EVNT species that have not been considered within the original EIS that may have relevance to the project.

 Requirements for additional information created by an inadequacy of sampling effort in relation to seasonal conditions.

 Sections of the TOR that have not been adequately addressed or considered.

Fauna

The review of EIS data, for the Arrow LNG Plant SREIS has been modified from guidelines provided in the ‘NSW Department of Environment and Conservation Threatened Biodiversity Survey and Assessment: Guidelines for Developments and Activities. Working Draft 2004’ (DEC, 2004) which provides a general method for identifying areas where additional ecological information (referred to as ‘gaps’) is required.

Information gaps may take many forms including:

 Spatial gaps where part of the study area may have less existing information or has never been surveyed.

 Taxonomic gaps where previous surveys have concentrated on birds, mammals or vegetation but omitted amphibians and reptiles.

 Ecological gaps where previous surveys have concentrated on forests but not native grasslands or heathlands.

 Topographic gaps where surveys have concentrated on flat areas and ridges at the neglect of steep slopes or gullies.

 Temporal and climatic gaps where studies have focused on surveys during a particular season at the omission of other conditions.

 Climatic gaps where, for example, previous studies have been conducted during dry or wet conditions but not both.

 Reporting gaps, where for example, previous studies may not have discussed issues raised in the TOR.

Due to the intrinsic nature of short-duration surveys conducted for the EIS, many deficiencies in ecological information are likely to be identified. These requirements for additional information must be evaluated against the overall aims of the EIS and limitations associated with costs and time of the EIS, as well as future work planned for the project (e.g., detailed pre-clearance surveys).

! !

! Proposed É launch site 4N

Proposed TWAF8 Proposed LNG plant site

Proposed tunnel

Proposed tunnel launch site and tunnel spoil disposal area

Proposed launch site 1 and access road

Legend Proposed Project Area TWAF7 Arrow Energy LNG Plant Gladstone ! Australia Pacific LNG Project DIP Common User Infrastructure Corridor GPC - Common User Infrastructure Corridor Gladstone LNG Project Gladstone Ports Corporation Queensland Curtis LNG Project

N O T E S: 3D Environmental Figure 1. Site layout Vegetation Assessment Arrow LNG Plant Supplementary Report & Mapping Specialists P. O. Box 959 to the EIS Terrestrial Ecology Study Kenmore, Qld 4069 Phone: (07) 3411 9072; (07) 3878 4344 Client Mobile: 0447 822 119; 0409 426 916 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Coffey Environments www.3denvironmental.com.au Date Kilometres Scale 1:70,000 Drawn By DG Checked DS 29/10/2012 A4 C:\Users\Owner\Documents\Clients\3D Environmental\Curtis\3d_Curtis_Location_A4L.mxd

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

2.2.2 Previous Survey Effort

Previous survey effort for both flora and fauna, as documented in Ec osure (2011), is outlined in Table 1 below. Survey limitations recognised by Ecosure (2011) have also been identified. Survey effort for the EIS was an extensive and thor ough survey effort, however, Ecosure reported a number of limitations, some due to external conditions and some that with the benefit of revision of completed works indicate a need for additional information.

Table 1. Previous survey effort. Component Details Flora Survey

Timing Three site visits of 20 days in total:  14th - 16th December 2009 (preliminary visual inspection).  12th – 22nd July 2010 (detailed field survey).  1st and 4th September 2010 (supplementary survey for Cupaniopsis sp. indet).  19th and 20th February, 2011 (TWAF 7, TWAF 8, mainland tunnel shaft and tunnel spoil disposal area). Survey conditions Weather conditions encountered during and preceding the field survey effort is not provided within the EIS. Detailed survey was however completed in July early in the dry season. I t is anticipated that a significant proportion of ground cover flora species would have retained sufficient condition to a llow identification to be completed with confidence. A single period of two days was completed on mainland localities coinciding with optimal periods for sampling in tropical savannah habitats defined by Neldner et al (2004) as being between February and May. Sampling Sufficiency Generally comprehensive site coverage 73 survey sites established across the project area with 66 of these sampled within remnant REs. The following points are noted:  Generally comprehensive sampling coverage of all REs ma pped within the project area with REs sampled at the following intensities: o RE 12.11.14 (3 secondary, 6 tertiary and 14 quaternary sites). o RE 12.3.3 (2 secondary, 2 tertiary and 3 quaternary). o RE 12.11.6 (2 tertiary, 3 quaternary). o RE 12.11.4 (1 secondary, 3 tertiary, 1 quaternary). o RE 12.3.7 (1 tertiary, 2 quaternary). o RE 11.3.4 (4 secondary, 1 tertiary, 8 quaternary). o RE 12.2.2 (1 secondary). o RE 12.1.3 (7 quaternary). o RE 12.1.2 (2 quaternary). Methods Standard floristic sampling methods adopted as per Neldner et al (2005). Recognised limitations The flora sampling was undertaken almost entirely within the drier winter months outside the optimal window for sampling in tropical savannah habitats. Hence there may be an under-representation of pere nnial native grass species and orchid species within the floristic species list. As further discussed in Table 2 however, this is not expected to have significantly affected survey outcome. Survey of mainland sites was however undertaken during optimal seasonal conditions (February 2011). Fauna Survey

Timing Three site visits:  14th - 16th December 2009 (preliminary visual inspection).  4th - 6th February 2010 (weather interrupted).

Component Details  12th - 24th July 2010. Survey conditions Torrential rain and unsafe working conditions and access limitations resulted in cancellation of wet season survey effort which may have resulted in undersampling of some fauna species, frogs and reptiles in particular. The report also mentions no works were undertaken during flowering events which may have affected sampling for some species of birds and bats. The use of database searches, particularly spatially referenced ones (e.g. Atlas of Living Australia) does however allow consideration of survey results across a broader range of seasonal periods. Sampling locations  Five sampling sites providing reasonable spatial cover of the Curtis Island LNG plant. Precise locations are not provided, it is apparent that most habitats were sampled except semi-evergreen vine thickets (SEVT). This latter habitat may have been too minor in extent to warrant targeted survey works.  No indication of formal fauna sampling at TWAF 8, although there are documented fauna records (e.g., rainbow bee-eater) from this area.  Mainland tunnel launch site not sampled, although sampling occurred nearby.  Red Rover Road site not sampled (area not included in scope for EIS).  No indication of fauna sampling at TWAF 7.  Launch site 1 not sampled. Methods  40 minute bird searches.  Nocturnal call playback.  Diurnal habitat searches (including track/scat searches).  Spotlighting.  Anabat ultrasonic microchiropteran bat call detection.  Elliot trapping. Elliot trapping locations are not clearly defined although appears to have been employed at two sampling locations associated with mangrove habitats.  Incidental observations. Recognised limitations  No detailed surveys were undertaken during the warm spring/summer months (due to excessive rainfall), affecting recorded amphibian, reptile and migratory bird diversity.  Surveys did not coincide with local flowering, which may have affected the detection of species attracted by abundant nectar/pollen (e.g., flying-foxes).  Fuel reduction burns completed in January 2010 in areas west of Ship Hill affected ground cover and is likely to have reduced terrestrial mammal and reptile abundance in burnt areas.  No pitfall or funnel trapping was undertaken as it was considered that these methods would not necessarily increase the likelihood of detecting locally known threatened species, as all targeted species were detectable using other methods.  Not all geographical areas were ass essed, but should be investigated prior to construction.

2.2.3 Identified Additional Information Requirements

Deficiencies in collected ecological information are inherent in any short-duration ecological surveys. Rather than identify all possible requirements for additional information, those listed in Table 2 have potential relevance to the decision-making process for the project and require additional work to address. That the following requirements for additional information are identified should not detract from the validity of previous EIS survey effort. It does however direct further

survey effort to those areas where additional information is required to increase confidence in prior EIS assessments and fine tune mitigation measures.

Table 2. Identified terrestrial ecology additional information requirements. Information Analysis Requirement Flora

Desktop Analysis The following points are considered minor requirements for additional information that require further consideration;  30 km buffer applied to the study area for the purpose of database searches in the EIS, is considered restrictive for a small study area and may not identify coastal EVNT species that are potentially present within the project area.  No meta-data for the Herbrecs search, including date of data extraction, has been provided.

Floristic Field  The field survey conducted for the EIS has not sufficiently assessed a broad Survey littoral fringe recognised as RE 12.2.2 in certified RE mapping (DERM, 2009a). Reclassification of this feature as RE 12.11.14 in Ecosure (2011) is based on a single quaternary vegetation site. Assessment requires additional support from comprehensively collected survey data.  Additional survey information is required at the mainland tunnel launch site. Existing survey points have not adequately assessed habitats on the littoral fringe. The footprint of the tunnel launch site has also been modified, shifting the original footprint to the north.  Launch site 1 has not been subject to survey.  The Red Rover Road site has not been surveyed as it was not within the original project description for EIS.  Limited floristic survey has been undertaken within optimal seasonal window. EVNT species that are visible or fertile only during optimal seasonal conditions may not have been adequately assessed. It should be noted however that for the majority of floristic species of relevance to the project (identified in Table 10, Section 5.1.3), identification to species level could be ascertained from vegetative material collected outside this optimal seasonal window.

Other Information  The taxonomy of the Cupaniopsis sp. indet. has not been addressed by relevant Requirements authorities.  No assessment of groundwater dependent ecosystems has been provided. Fauna

Seasonal data Limited data (approximately six days and no trapping) has been collected during the warmer summer months. Surveys during these periods are crucial to detecting summer migratory birds, frogs and reptiles.

Trapping No systematic trapping using techniques such as pitfall, funnel and cage/IR camera; limited Elliot trapping effort (83 trap nights within mangroves only). Generally, trap effort was low. These methods are important in the detection of a number of vertebrate groups including small/medium terrestrial mammals and reptiles. Further, these methods are important for detecting several EVNT species (e.g., Brigalow scaly-foot). Previous EIS assessments have not discounted the presence of these species based on field survey results.

Targeted survey Limited survey effort (83 trap nights) for water mouse and only active searches effort conducted for EVNT reptile species (e.g., Brigalow scaly-foot, collared delma). Presence of these species has not been discounted based on EIS survey efforts and supplementary surveys are intended to address these additional data requirements.

Information Analysis Requirement Flora

Migratory waders Documentation regarding wader habitat, including high-tide roosts is low. Migratory waders are assessed in a separate study being undertaken for the SREIS, and are not discussed further within this report.

Koala Since Ecosure (2011), the koala has been listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act within New South Wales and Queensland. Furthermore field investigations, including the assessment of koala habitat values according to guidelines, are required to appropriately assess this species.

EVNT While the report documents in detail impacts to particular areas or habitat, there is no documentation discussion relating specifically to EVNT species, and as a consequence, it is extremely difficult to determine impacts on individual taxa. Further, there is no discussion on the range, breeding, movements (etc.) of these taxa.

Where it has been possible to do so, subsequent assessment has been made to address additional information requirements through field survey and desktop analysis. This study largely fills deficiencies in floristic knowledge and includes field investigation specifically targeting water mouse habitat values. The study also increases overall documentation of EVNT species. However, with the exception of water mouse, discussions contained herein are not based on detailed field investigations, other than a preliminary assessment of habitat suitability. Furthermore, seasonal trapping remains an outstanding information requirement which will be addressed by further surveys undertaken early in 2013.

3.0 Legislative/ Policy Context

Few environmental legislative changes have come into effect since the publication of the EIS. However, a number of policy documents have been subsequently released that may influence the SREIS and ongoing project environmental requirements. These documents are listed below:

 The Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM, now Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP)) has released the revised Policy for Vegetation Management Offsets - Version 3 (DERM, 2011a). This document provides up to date information regarding the required application of vegetation management offsets to achieve the desired outcomes of the Queensland Vegetation Management Act, 1999.

 Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM, now Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP)) has released the Queensland Biodiversity Offsets Policy (Version 1) (DERM, 2011b). The policy provides a framework to ensure no net loss of biodiversity in Queensland through the application of project specific biodiversity offsets.

 Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM, now Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP)) has released the Ecological Equivalence Methodology Guideline (DERM, 2011c). The guideline is intended to inform requirements for ecological offset required under the Policy for Vegetation Management Offsets (DERM 2011a) and Queensland Biodiversity Offsets Policy (DERM, 2011b).

 DSEWPaC has released the EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy (DSEWPaC, 2012). The policy relates to protection of all matters protected under the EPBC Act through application of project specific biodiversity offsets

There have also been a number of species and habitats that have been added to the schedules of the EPBC Act which may influence the project as listed below:

 On the 2nd May 2012, the koala in New South Wales and Queensland was added to the EPBC Act as ‘vulnerable’. Referral guidelines for the koala have been released and outline criteria for assessing ‘critical habitat’, ‘important populations’ and significant impacts. To date, works necessary to comply with these criteria has not been undertaken or documented.

 The ‘Lowland Rainforest of Sub-Tropical Australia’ has been added to the EPBC list as ‘critically endangered’ in November 2011. Listing advice for the ecological community has been prepared (Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) 2011).

The EPBC Act listing of both the ‘Lowland Rainforest of Sub-tropical Australia’ and the koala came into effect after the decision was made that the Arrow LNG Plant was to be a controlled action. Hence the MNES assessment for the project is not affected by these listings.

There have also been a number of species removed from schedules of the NC Act that remain referenced in the EIS technical study prepared by Ecosure (2011). These species are identified in subsequent relevant sections.

Matters of National Environmental Significance Referral Guidelines: Significant Impact guidelines for MNES were released in 2009 by the Australian Government Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA, now DSEWPaC). These guidelines were in effect prior to the EIS but vulnerable species listed under the EPBC Act were not evaluated against these guidelines. The guidelines outline five criteria against which a development should be evaluated.

“An action is likely to have a significant impact on a vulnerable species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

 lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species (Criteria 1).

 reduce the area of occupancy of an important population (Criteria 2).

 fragment an existing important population into two or more populations (Criteria 3).

 adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species (Criteria 4).

 disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population (Criteria 5).

 modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline (Criteria 6).

 result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species’ habitat introduce disease that may cause the species to decline (Criteria 7), or

 interfere substantially with the recovery of the species.” (Criteria 8).

Where “An ‘important population’ is a population that is necessary for a species’ long-term survival and recovery. This may include populations identified as such in recovery plans, and/or that are:

 key source populations either for breeding or dispersal

 populations that are necessary for maintaining genetic diversity, and/or

 populations that are near the limit of the species range.”

In this report the above crit eria will be used t o evaluate vulnerable species which are known, or may occur, within the impact area.

4.0 Methods

4.1 Literature and Database Review

A review of available literature was undertaken to supplement, refine and update the desktop assessment undertaken by Ecosure (2011). The review considered a full range of information sources to ensure requirements for additional information are adequately addressed. The approach to desktop assessment for flora and fauna is provided below.

4.1.1 Flora

Prior to undertaking the review of EIS data, a thorough review of available literature was undertaken. Desktop material reviewed and analysed included raw data derived from database searches, information held by agencies and/or individuals and interpretive reports. Database searches from state and Australian government agencies provided the basis for the majority of background information regarding the presence and distribution of flora species, listed under legislation or otherwise, known from or likely to be in the project area. The search was undertaken specifically to identify any significant flora species that were not addressed in the initial EIS study undertaken by Ecosure (2011) with the major databases searched detailed in Table 3. Available imagery for the project area was also reviewed to provide context to existing RE mapping.

Table 3. Database sources relevant to floristic assessment. Source Notes Abbreviation Queensland Specimen-backed, so highly reliable. Geographic Herbrecs Herbarium’s records co-ordinates available. Search area taken as a 100 km system (EHP, 2012). buffer around project area although detailed analysis was undertaken for all EVNT species contained within a 50 km buffer to determine their relevance to the project. Regional Ecosystem Reliable vegetation descriptions based on site survey data. REDD Description Database Latest version (Version 7, has been released in August (EHP, 2012). 2012).

EHP WildNet Moderately reliable observations. No geographic co- WN ordinates available. May include anomolours records that have not been confirmed with vouchered specimens. EPBC Protected Predictive only and includes species restricted to habitats EPBC Online Matters search tool that occur outside the Project development area. A buffer of 50 km has been applied to the search. EHP‘s Regional Mapping of regional ecosystems based on aerial No Abbreviation Ecosystem digital photographic/ satellite interpretation and limited site data. data (DERM, 2009a). Reliability varies dependent of geographic location and accessibility for survey. Not reviewed in detail as this dataset has not changed subsequent to the Ecosure EIS report (Ecosure, 2011). EHP‘s High Value Mapping of regrowth vegetation based on temporal analysis No Abbreviation Regrowth digital data of aerial photography or satellite imagery, Reliability (DERM, 2009b). dependent on geographic location and supporting field survey. Not reviewed in detail as this dataset has not changed subsequent to the Ecosure EIS report (Ecosure, 2011). Queensland Wetland Mapping of wetland habitat based on aerial photograph/ No Abbreviation Data (DERM, 2010). satellite image interpretation, topography and limited site

Source Notes Abbreviation data. Reliability varies dependent of reliability of RE mapping produced by DERM (2009a). Not reviewed in detail as this dataset has not changed subsequent to the Ecosure EIS report (Ecosure, 2011). Australia’s Virtual Compilation of specimen backed data from a range of AVH Herbarium (AVH, sources. Generally reliable. Review as a supplementary tool 2012) to analyse EPBC Online search results and provide greater context to the Herbrecs search (EHP, 2012). (http://avh.ala.org.au) Other literature Primary literature; personal communications with relevant References are personnel, including EHP staff; books. Other sources provided throughout include technical and impact assessment reports relevant to document where the project site including those of other LNG proponents and appropriate. other major infrastructure projects in the region Biodiversity Planning A geographical information tool based on a range of data BPA Assessment - sources including expert opinion. Reliability varies Brigalow Belt North dependent on RE mapping and scale of data. Some (EPA, 2008a) specimen backed information is presented. Not reviewed in

detail as this dataset has not changed subsequent to the Ecosure EIS report (Ecosure, 2011).

4.1.2 Fauna

Prior to undertaking the review of EIS data, a thorough analysis of the existing fauna data from the study region was conducted. This included database inspection, review of relevant literature and an examination of aerial imagery from the study area and surrounds which are further described in relation to flora and fauna sections below. Database search parameters were set to include a suitable buffer zone (25-50 km) around the project area in order to account for locally transient species, or those with large home ranges. Where sufficient data was provided, observations or records of EVNT species were added to the database results.

Table 4. Database sources used in this assessment Source Description and Parameters

WildNet (EHP online database) (WN) Information compiled from database records of species observed throughout Queensland. Search parameters were set at a 25 km radius of Curtis Island (largest available WN search). Australian Living Atlas (ALA) Database of recorded species sightings Australia wide. Parameters consisted of 6 searches of 10 km radius of Gladstone region (largest available ALA search). EcoSmart Ecology Database (ESE) Based on in-house observations by professional EcoSmart Ecology staff during fieldwork. 50 km search radius of Gladstone region. EHP‘s Regional Ecosystem digital Mapping of regional ecosystems based on aerial photographic/ data (DERM, 2009a). satellite interpretation and limited site data. Reliability varies dependent of geographic location and accessibility for survey. Not reviewed in detail as this dataset has not changed subsequent to the Ecosure EIS report (Ecosure, 2011). Other literature Primary literature; personal communications with relevant personnel, including EHP staff; books. Other s ources include technical and impact assessment reports relevant to the project site including those of other LNG proponents and other major infrastructure projects in the region. * Results from the Queensland Museum Collection and Birds Australia Atlas was gathered by Ecosure (2011) and imported into these works rather than re-requested.

The purpose of this search is to create location-specific list of EVNT species known from the local area which, subject to suitable habitat being present, could occur within the project area. Once established, EVNT species which have the potential to occur should be the focus of field investigations. EVNT species known from the area and those considered most likely to occur will be subject to targeted surveys (e.g., water mouse). Other potential EVNT species will be sufficiently covered by general survey effort planned for early 2013 and results of the desktop assessment. Pre-clearance surveys will further detect species prior to construction. However, it is recognised that targeted field assessment consistent with targeted survey guidelines published by the Australian Government (e.g., DEWHA 2010, DEWHA 2011) for each and every EVNT species is extremely time consuming and outside the scope of a standard baseline survey.

Other planning tools, such as the Southeast Queensland Biodiversity Planning Assessment (BPA), regional ecosystem and essential habitat mapping, have been inspected to provide local and regional contexts.

4.2 Field Survey

4.2.1 Floristic Survey

Floristic Sampling Procedure

The results of the EIS data review, literature review and review of project imagery was used to select locations for site survey, focusing on those areas where requirements for additional information or inconsistencies in previous field survey were identified.

The field investigation was conducted over a single five day period (between 28 August and 2 September, 2012). Conditions during the field survey were mild (temperature range of 13 to 28°C) with dry conditions and moderate SSE winds.

To be consistent with previous efforts, field survey followed Queensland Herbarium standards as identified in Neldner et al. (2005) using a combination of formalised secondary, tertiary and quaternary level sampling procedures, as well as informal site observation (undertaken at the launch site 1). Secondary sites were chosen in habitats that presented good type examples of a particular vegetation community or RE or where specific floristic and structural information was required to inform RE classification. Quaternary sites were established for the primary purpose of RE validation, often in locations where ground searches for EVNT species were undertaken. Observation sites were undertaken in areas where no formalised site location was recorded although species lists and general observations were made.

Secondary sites consisted of a 50 m x 10 m plot located along the contour located away from vegetation community (VC) boundaries. Crown intercept transects were extended to 100 m for the purpose of providing sufficient data for reference sites or where standard 50 m transects did not provide a representative sample of habitat structure. Bitterlich measurements, as described in

Grosenbaugh (1952), were used to record community basal area at all sites and full species lists for all strata were established during the secondary sampling procedure wherein the 500 m2 plot was intensively sampled, followed by a detailed search of the vicinity. The abundance of all species within the plot was recorded by stem counts and by a visually assessed 1-5 cover-abundance ranking using the Braun-Blanquet method. Groundcover was assessed using five 1x1 m subplots placed at 10 m intervals along the transect with visual cover estimations of dominant species. Ecological and structural data together with full species lists were also recorded.

Tertiary sites were completed in a similar fashion to the secondary sampling procedure, although non-woody species were not recorded. Tertiary sites were utilised specifically on Curtis Island where they proved a useful means to differentiate between RE 12.11.14 and RE 12.11.7 (see Section 5.1.4). Quaternary sites comprised a description of floristic structure, composition, and associated landform.

Wherever an RE was considered to provide potential habitat for EVNT flora species, the search area was broadened and a more extensive species list was established from an extended search area. Flora species were also recorded on walking traverses, again with particular attention toward known and potential habitats of EVNT species as well as declared weeds and locally important taxa. Botanical voucher specimens were collected throughout the field survey to verify site floristics and enable identification of those species that were problematic. Identifications were provided by Queensland Herbarium. Vouchers of all EVNT species were sent to the Queensland Herbarium for incorporation into its database.

Forty-five floristic survey sites plus a single observation site were recorded during the survey supplementing the 75 survey sites recorded by Ecosure (2011). The location of floristic survey sites, including those associated with prior studies is shown in Figure 2 with a breakdown of survey sites per location within the project area provided in Table 5. A summary of survey sites recorded during this study is provided in Appendix A with a survey species list provided in Appendix B.

It should be noted that site specific vegetation mapping was only undertaken during this assessment for the Red Rover Road site. Inconsistencies or inaccuracies in mapping undertaken during the EIS were however noted during the course of the supplementary assessment and adjusted vegetation mapping will be taken forward into submission of the SREIS and future work in identifying offset requirements.

" " " " " É " "

" "" " " " " "

" " " "

" " "" " "

Legend 12.11.14/12.11.4 12.2.2 3D Environmental Sites Regional Ecosystems "

" Quaternary 11.3.4 12.11.4 12.3.3

" Secondary 12.1.2 12.11.6 12.3.3a

" " Tertiary 12.1.2 (sporobolus grassland) 12.11.6/12.11.14 12.3.6 " " " Project Area 12.1.3 12.11.7 12.3.7 " " " " " 12.11.14 12.2.11 non-rem

N O T E S: 3D Environmental Regional Ecosystems modifiied fromr Ecosure (2011) Figure 2. Floristic survey locations Vegetation Assessment & Mapping Specialists Arrow LNG Plant Supplementary Report P. O. Box 959 Kenmore, Qld 4069 to the EIS Terrestrial Ecology Study Phone: (07) 3411 9072; (07) 3878 4344 Mobile: 0447 822 119; 0409 426 916 0 1 2 3 4 Client Coffey Environments www.3denvironmental.com.au File Path Date Kilometres Scale 1:66,249 Drawn By DG Checked DS 30/10/2012 A4 C:\Users\Owner\Documents\Clients\3D Environmental\Curtis\3d_Curtis_A4L.mxd

Table 5. Summary of floristic survey sites undertaken during supplementary works. Project Location Secondary Sites Tertiary Sites Quaternary Observation Recorded Recorded Sites Recorded Sites

TWAF 7 0 0 1 0

TWAF 8 1 0 2 0

Red Rover Road 4 0 5 0 Site

(Mainland) Launch 0 0 0 1 Site 1

Mainland Tunnel 4 0 4 0 Launch Site

Curtis Island SIte 2 10 12 0

Flora Species Survey and Likelihood Assessment

Data from the desktop review and field based survey for flora was analysed and a list of threatened flora species considered relevant or potentially relevant to the project was compiled. The list considers the full range of species assessed by Ecosure (2011) as well as additional species that were not identified in the original EIS study. A ‘likelihood of occurrence‘ assessment was undertaken based on available records, known species and habitat distribution, and habitat suitability. This assessment served primarily to validate assessments made in the EIS or provide detail of assessments for species not assessed within the EIS survey. Where habitat for threatened flora species was confirmed present in the project area, specific field searches for relevant species were undertaken. Where these searches were considered to have comprehensively surveyed all potentially suitable habitat or a particular species, including previous search efforts undertaken by Ecosure, search effort was deemed sufficient. Assessment results for individual species are identified in Table 6.

4.2.2 Fauna Field Survey

Vertebrate Assessment Additional survey effort was undertaken to assess the likelihood of EVNT species occurring within the project area and to verify the findings of the assessments undertaken by Ecosure for the Arrow LNG Plant EIS in 2010 and 2011. This involved spotlighting, active searching and habitat assessment at various locations on both Curtis Island and mainland sites. Surveys were undertaken to establish the suitability of habitat for EVNT species, and to define which species require further assessment in planned surveys for the 2013 wet season.

Spotlighting: Spotlighting assessment was undertaken whilst walking to and from water mouse survey sites and for approximately one hour over two nights around the campsite (-23.78141 151.233139) on

Curtis Island. Spotlighting particularly focused on searching for nocturnal EVNT species such as powerful owl, grey-headed flying-fox, and Brigalow scaly-foot.

Active Searching: Active searching was undertaken in terrestrial habitats for approximately half an hour at each site, and four hours on Curtis Island. Active searching involved listening for birds, rolling logs/debris for reptiles and small mammals, and inspecting bark and tree crevices for reptiles and microbats.

Throughout the survey opportunistic records of vertebrate fauna was taken. The inclusion of incidental observations improves spatial sampling and contributes to determining locations, or habitats, for priority species.

Habitat Assessment: Habitat assessment for EVNT species was undertaken at all sites to determine the suitability for priority species and habitat condition within the project area. The assessment considers relevant factors for individual EVNT species such as feed trees, flowering resources, nesting opportunities, available ground cover, proximity to water, vegetation density and complexity.

Water Mouse Survey

Water mouse surveys focused on mangrove habitats across the study site, the extent of which was determined through aerial photo interpretation and inspection of existing vegetation maps. Particular areas of focus included mangroves around the Calliope River mouth, mainland launch site 1 and adjacent to the mainland tunnel shaft and tunnel spoil disposal site. No survey work was undertaken in mangrove habitats within North China Bay due to logistical constraints. The water mouse has been confirmed in the area during other studies including on the Australia Pacific LNG project site (Worley Parsons, 2011) and the New Gladstone Coal Terminal project site (GHD, 2012) which lies to the northwest of mainland launch site 1 across the Calliope River.

All mainland locations contained only small areas of mangroves (see Figure 3). An assessment of the habitat within North China Bay on Curtis Island was not undertaken, although apparent suitable habitat occurs. Results from other projects have indicated that water mouse are likely to occur, hence they have been assumed to be present in the area.

Field Data Collection: Consistent with the Australian Government’s survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened mammals (DEWHA. 2011), water mouse data was gathered using a combination of three methods being habitat assessment, Elliot trapping and active searching. While both trapping and active searching can determine the presence of the water mouse, habitat assessment can only provide a likelihood of the species occurring. Furthermore, the water mouse surveys did not estimate population abundance, rather surveys only allow for the presence of the species to be confirmed. Details of all water mouse survey methodologies are described below.

Habitat Assessment: Habitat assessments within the project area were restricted to mangroves and adjoining habitats at three sites on Curtis Island (to the east and west of Boatshed Point, and in the

northeast corner of the project area, east of the LNG plant site) and three areas on the mainland (launch site 1, mainland tunnel launch site and Red Rover Road site). Both launch site 1 and the Red Rover Site on the mainland contained only small areas of mangrove whilst at the mainland tunnel launch site, no mangrove habitats are to be affected and the site was not subject to targeted water mouse survey. North China Bay on Curtis Island was not assessed as access to the area was not available. Based on the results of other surveys, and assessments of sites during supplementary surveys it is assumed that water mouse are present in North China Bay.

Habitat assessments are based on the known habitat and ecological preferences of water mouse. Key features in assessing suitable habitats include:

 The extent of the available habitat (mangroves).

 The habitat adjoining mangroves (marine couch, woodlands, mudflats).

 The distance from mangroves to vegetation above the high-tide.

 The availability and size of hollows.

 Prey abundance (crabs).

 The level of disturbance.

These features were assessed at each site during the active search component of surveys. Assessing the suitability of the habitats allowed searches and trapping to focus on areas of highest water mouse potential.

Elliot Trapping: Elliot trapping was undertaken at three sites on Curtis Island and at launch site 1 on the mainland (Figure 3). These sites were all assessed as possibly having water mouse based on habitat features listed above.

Traps were freshly baited each night using a mixture of sardines, tuna, crab and rolled oats. Approximately 100 traps were dispersed as best as possible throughout the habitats and set at least two hours before the low tide and retrieved at least two hours after low tide. This allowed traps to be open at least four hours each evening, however where possible traps were left open for up to six hours depending on their location with respect to the high tide level.

Traps were set in lines of either five or ten traps running through the mangroves from the mainland edge toward the water. Depending on the habitat complexity, traps were separated by approximately 5 m. Where a potential nesting hollow was located, five traps were positioned in close proximity to the entrance of the hollow. Increasing trapping effort in proximity to possible hollows improves the likelihood of capturing an individual.

In total, 620 trap nights were undertaken over seven nights throughout suitable habitat. This was a substantial increased in trap effort from the 83 trap nights previously undertaken in mangrove habitat.

É ## #### #### ######## ####### #### ##### # # ###### ##### # ##### É # # #### ###### # # #### # #####

#### #### ## ##### #### ## #### ##### # #### # #### # ### # ### ## ### # ########## ####### # # ####### ####### #### ###### ###### ## ##### # #### ## #### #### ###### ######## # ## ## #### # # ######

# ## ### # # ## ### INSET A # 01.5 3 6

Kilometres

MAIN MAP # ## ## #### ## É # # ###### ## ##### ## ########################## ##### # ############ ############################# ### # ### ## ### # # ## ## # ########### ########################################### ### ##### ################################### ############# # # #### ## # ### ### # #### ### ## # ##### # ## # # ## ## ###### # ## ###### # # ### ##### # ### #### # #

###################### ###################### ######## ##

INSET A

N O T E S: Figure 3. Water Mouse trap site locations and tracks 3D Environmental DIGITAL CADASTRAL DATA BASE Legend Vegetation Assessment © The State of Queensland (Department of Natural Arrow LNG Plant Supplementary Report & Mapping Specialists Resources) [2011] # Water Mouse Trap Site to the EIS Terrestrial Ecology Study P. O. Box 959 Kenmore, Qld 4069 Track Location Client Phone: (07) 3411 9072; (07) 3878 4344 Coffey Environments Mobile: 0447 822 119; 0409 426 916 0 200 400 600 800 www.3denvironmental.com.au Project Area Date Metres Scale 1:16,613 Drawn By DG Checked DS 29/10/2012 A3 C:\Users\Owner\Documents\Clients\3D Environmental\Curtis\3d_Curtis_Veg_A4L.mxd

Active Searching: During the day searched for evidence of water mouse were conducted by random meander traverses through mangrove habitats (Figure 3) Each mangrove patch was searched by three surveyors for a varying amount of time (at least two hours) based on the extent of potential habitat within that patch. Larger areas such as those to the east and west of boat shed point were not searched in entirety due to their size, but searched until either evidence of water mouse was located or surveyors were suitably convinced of the likelihood of occurrence.

Evidence of water mouse activity was evaluated by:

 Feeding signs (prey middens, crab remains - predominantly full claws).  Mounds/nest structures.  Mud lined tree hollows.  Tree plugs.  Tracks through the vegetation from mangroves to adjoining habitat.  Water mouse footprints in the mud.

Where evidence of water mouse was found, a GPS coordinate was recorded for later inclusion in the GIS database.

4.3 Survey Conditions and Limitations

4.3.1 Conditions

Water mouse surveys (25 August to 2 September) were undertaken during warm sunny days with cool nights. During the first two nights of trapping at launch site 1, 30 minutes of heavy rain fell within an hour of traps being set. This is likely to have reduced the activity levels of the water mouse and reduced the likelihood of capturing individuals. The timing of the low tide throughout the survey period allowed traps to be set for their entire duration in darkness between sunset and sunrise.

4.3.2 Limitations

Vertebrate Assessment

One mainland site, TWAF 7, was not surveyed due to access constraints. This area, which consists of non-remnant habitats (reclaimed ash ponds), was accessed by the 3D Environmental flora team who collected habitat notes, opportunistic fauna observations and photographic representation. This data was used to assess fauna values at TWAF 7.

Water Mouse

Historically, water mouse trapping in the Gladstone Region has very low capture rates. This may reflect either low population densities or a reluctance to enter traps. For example, trapping over a seven month period in water mouse habitat near Gladstone has resulted in only two individuals being caught after thousands of trap nights (Stephen Rose pers. comm.). These low trap rates indicate that trapping is not the most efficient method for determining the presence of water mouse in the Gladstone region. Therefore,

trapping limitations experienced in this survey (see below) are not expected to have significantly affected survey results. Rather, active searching is a more productive and successful method for determining the presence of water mouse activity around Port Curtis.

In addition to the limitations discussed above, the following survey considerations are noted:

 Trapping was difficult due to complex and dense layers of mangroves and slowed further by deep muddy substrates. Due to these factors and tidal restraints, time limitations allowed the trapping of only one mangrove patch per night. It was therefore decided that each mangrove trap should be trapped at least once; no patches were trapped over consecutive nights. This approach ensured that all sites were surveyed and trapping did not reduce the amount of time allocated to habitat searches.  Water mouse are active nocturnally on the low tide, providing a limited timeframe to set and retrieve traps within mangrove systems. Encroaching tides reduced trapping duration to a maximum of six hours, although four hours trapping was typical. The limited trapping duration is acceptable for this species.  The challenges associated with manoeuvrability within the mangroves did not allow for sites to be trapped or actively searched in their entirety. However habitat assessments allowed areas of optimal habitat to be targeted.

4.4 Approach to Impact Assessment

The approach used in this study to assess impact significance considers the sensitivity of the ecological value to the impact (both direct and indirect impact) as well as the predicted magnitude of the impact. The approach adopted is conservative in nature and assumes:

 That the identified impacts will occur; and

 Proven mitigation measures will be utilised and applied successfully.

In this case, mitigation measures which have not been tested, or are not known to be successful, are not considered in the recommended management actions. Scope is allowed to identify those species, which are considered by their ecology and habit, to be amenable to a particular mitigation method (e.g., translocation) even though the effectiveness of this mitigation method has not been practically tested.

4.4.1 Sensitivity of Ecological Values The sensitivity of ecological values considers a number of criteria including but not limited to:

 The legislative status (conservation status) of an ecological value.

 The intactness of an ecological value.

 The rarity of an ecological value.

 The resilience of an ecological value to cope with change.

 The ability of an ecological value to recover from an impact.

Communities and species protected by legislation have been determined to be declining in either extent or abundance and further loss of any population is contrary to fundamental conservation principles. Sensitivity definitions provided in Table 6 therefore have a bias towards the sensitivity of populations rather than individuals. However, some scope has been included to assess those individual species which appear to be abundant in Queensland despite their status.

Table 6. Sensitivity ranking definitions.

Sensitivity Descriptor Ranking

Not Sensitive (1) No short-term or long -term project impacts are lik ely to adversely affect the population/community, or the population/ community may benefit from the project (e.g., coloniser species) and is r esilient to changes in habitat structure or condition. The species is not considered threatened under state or federal legislation. Impacted habitats may be have a low degree of intactness due to previous disturbance regimes. Low Sensitivity The community/species is not listed as threatened under legislation and has a high (2) resilience to p roject related impacts. Short-term impacts may occur but are unlikely to cause local extinction. The community/species is resilient to change and able to quickly recover and no long-term impact is expected on abundance, extent or integrity. Impacted habitats may be have a low degree of intactness due to previous disturbance regimes, or The species is not listed as threatened under legislation and has a moderate resilience to disturbance. Short-term impacts (over one - t wo generations) may lead to a lo ss of abundance or extent, but are unlikely to cause local extinction. The species can recolonise or recruit and only minor long-term impacts are expected on the abundance, extent and integrity of the community/population. Th e community/species is well represented in th e bioregion and state (not applicable to critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable values). Moderate The species is listed as near threatened or threatened under relevant state or federal Sensitivity (3) legislation but has a moderate resilience to disturbance. Short-term impacts (over one - two generations) may lead to a loss of abundance or extent, but are unlikely to cause local extinction. The species can recolonise or recruit and only minor long-term impacts are expected on the abundance, extent and integrity of the community/population. The community/species is rare or uncommon but widely distributed throughout the state, or may be common and largely restricted to the bioregion. High Sensitivity The species is listed as threatened under state or federal legislation and has a low (4) resilience to d isturbance. Impacts may lead to a lo ng-term decrease in its abundance and/or extent, or may affect the long-term integrity of the community/population. The community/species regenerates/recolonises with difficulty after disturbance. The community/species is r are but widespread outside the project area within the broader bioregion. Habitats typically demonstrate a high degree of intactness or integrity. or The species is listed as threatened under state or federal legislation and has a moderate resilience to disturbance. Short-term impacts may lead to a loss of abundance or extent, but are unlikely to cause local population extinction. The species is able to recolonise or recruit and only minor long-term impacts are expected on the abundance, extent and integrity of the community/population. The community/species may occur outside the project area, but core populations and/or known distribution are heavily centred on the project area. Habitats typically demonstrate a high degree of intactness or integrity. Extreme The species/ population is listed as threatened, endangered or critically endangered sensitivity (5) under state or federal legislation and has low resilience to disturbance. Impacts may or are likely to lead to the long-term extinction of a local community/population. Natural recruitment or colonization would not replace or restore the community/population within several generations. Habitats typically demonstrate a high degree of intactness and may represent benchmark condition in reference to examples of the habitat across its broader range.

4.4.2 Assessment of Impact Magnitude

As utilised in this impact assessment approach, the magnitude of an impact on a specific ecological value is an assessed in accordance with:

 the geographical extent of an impact, with particular reference to:

o The relative importance of a habitat to the survival of a population.

o the proportion of an ecological value relative to its local, bioregional, statewide or national extent.

 The duration of an impact whether it be short term (months), medium term (years) or long term (decades).

 The severity of an impact, being the degree of change from existing condition considered in relation to the impact extent.

Summary definitions of impact magnitude are provided in Table 7 below.

Table 7. Impact Magnitude Ranking Definitions

Magnitude Description Ranking

Extremely Low The impact is restricted to a local population and impacts do not extend beyond the direct Magnitude (1) impact footprint. The impact will be difficult to detect when the source of i mpact is removed. Low Magnitude The impact is restricted to a local population and impacts do not extend beyond the area (2) of direct impact. The impact will be detectable although recovery will occur in the short term (months) without the risk of long term impacts to the local population. Moderate The impact may extend beyond the immediate boundary of disturbance although is Magnitude (3) contained within a re gional population. Impacts are short term and it is feasible to manage local impacts with species/ population specific management protocols or actions. High Magnitude An impact extends beyond the area of a local population and may affect an entire bio- (4) regional population or species. Impacts are medium to long term and impact management procedures do not rapidly reverse the impact. Extremely High An impact extends to an entire population or grou p of populations whether this be at a Magnitude (5) national, regional or local level. Impact management procedures have not been tested or provide limited impact amelioration and there is limited potential for the population to recover once the disturbance has been removed.

4.4.3 Impact Significance Assessment

The significance of an ecological impact is derived from the risk matrix as provided in Table 8 being determined from the sensitivity of an ecological value and the magnitude of the impact it experiences. Descriptors for the impact significance ranking are given in Table 9.

Table 8. Matrix for the assessment of the significance of an ecological impact.

Ecological Sensitivity

Extremely Highly Moderately Low Not Sensitive Sensitive Sensitive Sensitive Sensitivity

Extremely High

Magnitude 25 24 22 19 15

High Magnitude 23 21 18 14 10

Moderate Magnitude 20 17 13 9 6

Low Magnitude 16 12 8 5 3

Extremely Low

Magnitude 11 7 4 2 1 Impact Magnitude Impact Magnitude Impact Significance Ranking Extremely High 23-25 High 20-22 Moderate 11-19 Low significance 4-10 Insignificant 1-3

Table 9. Impact significance ranking definitions

Significance Descriptor Ranking Insignificant An impact occurs to an ecological value that is of limited importance on a local or regional basis. The impact is largely reversible with degradation controlled by a range of standard mitigation and management measures that have been proven to be extremely effective. Low An ecological value is of local importance only and impacts will be of a transient nature that Significance will not affect the long term viability of a local population. A range of mitigation and management measures are known to ameliorate or reverse the process of degradation. Moderate Although resilient to change, further degradation of an ecological value will occur due to the Significance impact scale, or the activity has potential to increase the susceptibility of the ecological value to further change. Although important in the l ocal ecological context, the value is widespread outside the area of impact and a range of management measures are known to facilitate recovery or replacement of the ecological value. High A high magnitude impact occurs when proposed activities exacerbate or accelerate the Significance degradation of a unique or rare ecological value. Whilst management actions are known to ameliorate impacts, a full recovery of the value to pre-impact condition is a long term process (decades) which will require rigorous active management. In these cases, avoidance is the preferred primary mitigation measure. Extremely High An impact occurs that causes major, long term and widespread harm to a habitat or Significance ecological value that is irreplaceable because of its uniqueness or re stricted occurrence. The impact is largely irreversible and no mitigation measures have been proven to ameliorate the impact, and avoidance is considered the only effective mitigation

4.4.4 Residual Impact Significance Estimation

Residual impact evaluation identifies those impacts associated with various impacts of the project in the broadest sense, from project construction and operational phases. It considers impacts known to be associated with the project, or may draw from case studies associated with similar operations. The residual impact evaluation considers impacts remaining following implementation of management/mitigation procedures. Mitigation measures proposed are consistent with those presented in the EIS, and the commitment number from the EIS given thereafter in parentheses. New mitigation measures proposed for consideration in the SREIS to address impacts identified in this study, are those without a commitment number in parentheses after the mitigation measure. Therefore, the residual impact assessment is based on the assumption that the sensitivity of the ecological value does not change, but the magnitude of the impact does.

5.0 Survey Results and Impact Assessment

The following section separates the survey results for flora and fauna. Whilst floristic assessment concentrated on addressing a number of relatively minor additional information requirements, fauna survey required a much more extensive assessment of both habitat values and individual EVNT species known to occur or potentially occurring in the project area.

5.1 Floristic Assessment

5.1.1 Threatened Ecological Communities and Regional Ecosystems

A search of the EPBC database for the project area buffered to 50 km (DSEWPaC, 2012) (database extract included as Appendix D) indicates the following ecological communities as potentially occurring in the project area:

1. Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant) (endangered).

2. Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia (critically endangered).

3. Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia (critically endangered)

4. Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and Nandewar Bioregions (endangered).

5. Weeping Myall Woodlands (endangered).

6. Coolibah – Black Box Woodlands of the Darling Riverine Plains and Brigalow Belt South Bioregions (endangered).

The ‘Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia’ ecological community was listed under the EPBC Act as ´critically endangered’ in November 2011, following the completion of the EIS report. A review of certified RE mapping (DERM, 2009) suggests that the component REs (12.3.1, 12.5.13,

12.8.3, 12.8.4, 12.8.13, 12.11.1, 12.11.10, 12.12.1, 12.12.16) are not present in the study area. This was confirmed during field survey.

The ‘Coolibah – Black Box Woodland’ was not identified in EPBC Act Protected Matters Search undertaken by Ecosure (2011). Identification in the current search is most likely due to an expansion of the search buffer associated with the more recent search. Field survey however did not locate or suggest the presence of this habitat within the project site.

Of the remaining communities, the ´Littoral Rainforest and Vine Thickets‘ ecological community was confirmed to be present on the Curtis Island site during initial phases of field survey (Ecosure, 2011) as a small patch (0.25 ha) on the western side of Hamilton Point. An additional patch was identified in the supplementary phase of field survey on the northeast side of Boatshed Point (see Section 5.1.4).

The ´Brigalow´ and ‘Weeping Myall Woodlands’ ecological community was not located during field survey.

Residual Impact Assessment – Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thicket Ecological Community Status: Critically endangered

Sensitivity: The habitat is considered to be ‘extremely sensitive’ due to its susceptibility to degradation, weed infestation and coastal erosion in particular

Vegetation mapping completed by Ecosure (2011), as well as works associated with the SREIS, identified two small patches of littoral rainforest as occurring on the Curtis Island LNG plant site. The location and characteristics of these vine thicket patches are further discussed in Section 5.5.5 although both habitats have a combined extent of 0.41 ha. Within the southeast Queensland (SEQ) bioregion, 2665 ha of this ecological community is mapped, encompassed wholly by RE 12.2.2. The extent of the habitat on the project site represents 0.01 % of the total extent of the ecological community in the SEQ bioregion.

No direct impact to this ecological community is anticipated as efforts have been made to specifically avoid the habitat. It should be noted that clearing for infrastructure not related to the Arrow LNG Plant has already been undertaken to the margins of the Hamilton Point community.

Recommended Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are recommended to minimise indirect impact to the ecological community:

 Develop weed management measures prior to initiation of construction activities in accordance with local and regional management guidelines and best practice advice prescribed in DERM’s pest control factsheet series (C17.09).  Liaise with Biosecurity Queensland and Gladstone Regional Council on project biosecurity and pest management programs. Notify Gladstone Regional Council of any new declared or notifiable pest species. These programs should particularly focus on the 48

boundaries of the project site with the Environmental No change Management Precinct (C17.10).  Clearly mark no-go zones, where required, including the semi-evergreen vine thicket (Cupaniopsis) fenced area on Boatshed Point, and the “Critically Endangered” EPBC Act listed vine thicket communities on the eastern margin of Hamilton Point, and northeast of Boatshed Point. Signage will be erected around the margins of the communities to indicate restricted access (C17.23).  Protect the EPBC Act listed community northeast of Boatshed Point and employ low impact methods of weed control within and adjacent to EPBC Act listed communities.  Establish a management buffer of suitable width and of contiguous natural vegetation, around the EPBC Act listed community northeast of Boatshed Point to minimise the potential for edge effects and limit the potential for weed invasion. The buffer will be defined in the Wildlife Corridor Management Plan to be developed prior to construction.  Implement fire control measures to prevent wildfire incursion into the EPBC Act listed communities. This may include construction of firebreaks or asset protection burning outside of the community and its associated buffer.  Detail the need to protect EPBC Act listed communities and explain mitigation measures that are to be implemented in workforce inductions.

Residual Impacts: The proposed activities will not directly impact the habitat although have potential to cause degradation, particularly through facilitated weed invasion. These habitats represent an extremely small proportion of the ecological communities national extent (<0.01 %) and thus at the project site, any impact is considered to be of low magnitude. The ecological community has not been recorded on either the APLNG or QGC LNG Plant sites although a small area (0.4 ha) is to be cleared on the common user infrastructure corridor (URS, 2009). At the project site, implementation of the recommended mitigation measures will result in impacts of extremely low magnitude and residual impact significance is considered to be moderate (11). Cumulative impacts are considered to be of low magnitude and residual impacts are considered to be moderate (17).

Evaluation under MNES referral guidelines: The significance of impacts to the littoral vine thicket ecological community are assessed under MNES referral guidelines in Table 10.

Table 10. Significance of impact to the littoral vine thicket ecological community under MNES referral guidelines. Criteria Evaluation

Reduce the extent of an ecological community No direct impact will be incurred and project infrastructure avoids these communities. No reduction in the extent of the ecological community is expected.

Fragment or increase fragmentation of an ecological Identified mitigation measures include: community  Management buffers around existing habitats are to be established.  Vegetation contiguous to the ecological communities should be preserved as far as practical. 49

Criteria Evaluation

Effective implementation of mitigation measures will ensure that the impacts of habitat fragmentation to the ecological community will be insignificant.

Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of an No habitat critical to the survival of this community ecological community. will be adversely affected.

Disturbance to this ecological community will be avoided as noted above. The occurrences are small isolated habitats that do not form components of broader regional occurrences.

Modify or destroy abiotic (non-living) factors (such as Disturbance to this ecological community will be water, nutrients, or s oil) necessary for an ecological mitigated through measures described above. community’s survival, including reduction of groundwater Additional measures include: levels, or substantial alteration of surface water drainage  Management of surface water flow in areas patterns. where soil is disturbed through appropriate erosion control.

These factors require consideration in EMP for the project and effective implementation will ensure residual impact is insignificant.

It should be noted that the habitat is not considered reliant on groundwater for its survival. Cause a substantial change in the species composition Disturbance to this ecological community will be of an occurrence of an ecological community, including avoided as noted above. Additional mitigation causing a decline or l oss of functionally important measures will include: species, for example through regular burning or flora or  Monitoring of habitat condition including fauna harvesting. identification of new weed infestations  Develop short and long term weed control and management programs.  Management buffers erected to exclude personnel from the site except for management purposes  Fire should be excluded from the ecological community through management of adjacent flammable vegetation types (e.g. eucalypt woodland). Effective implementation of prescribed mitigation measures will ensure that impacts caused by changes to the current species composition will be insignificant. Cause a substantial reduction in the quality or integrity of The habitat currently retains natural values and is an occurrence of an ecological community, including, but relatively free from exotic species. Measures to avoid not limited to: facilitated spread of exotic species into these habitats include: Assisting invasive species, that are harmful to the listed  Active management of existing weed ecological community, to become established; or infestations on the project site using low impact means (selective herbicide and Causing regular mobilisation of fertilisers, herbicides or physical removal). other chemicals or pollutants into the ecological  Implementation of management buffers and community which kill or inhibit the growth of species in exclusion zones around occurrences. the ecological community.  Weed management protocols including weed washdowns and control of weed infestations in the constructed easement. Effective implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures will ensure current habitat quality will not be impacted Interfere with the recovery of an ecological community. The ecological community retains natural condition and is not currently in a state of recovery.

5.1.2 Regional Ecosystems

As the certified RE mapping database (DERM, 2009a) has not been altered following submission of the Ecosure EIS report, no further analysis has been undertaken. Notes in regard to mapping consistency have however been made in subsequent sections where individual project site facilities are discussed (see Section 5.5).

5.1.3 Threatened Species

Table 11 presents a summary of EVNT species identified by Ecosure (2011) as potentially occurring in the study area, plus additional species identified with database searches undertaken in conjunction with this assessment. A review of species likelihood assessments from the EIS study was undertaken to ensure that all potentially occurring species have been adequately accounted for. The location of threatened species from recent Herbarium records, supplemented with additional 3D Environmental data, is shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5 for NC Act and EPBC Act listed species respectively. Two species identified in the Ecosure ecological survey have been removed from the schedules of the NC Act and present no further relevance to the project.

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! Rockhampton " Inset ! ! É " "

! Legend " Botanical Name - NCA Status E - Endangered, V - Vulnerable, N - Near Theratened " " Acacia sp., N " "" "" " Actephila sessilifolia, N ! N " " Alyxia sharpei, " "" " !!! #""""" ! " E " " Apatophyllum olsenii, ! !!!! """" " Argophyllum nullumense, N " " ! E " Atalaya collina, ! ! ! " Cassinia collina, V # " "" ! " Clausena smyrelliana, E ## " Mt Larcom # ! !! " Gladstone " Cycas megacarpa, E ! !!!!!!!!! ! " " " Cycas ophiolitica, E Gladstone ! " Dansiea elliptica, N """" Eucalyptus decolor, N " # """"""""" See Inset """ " # Graptophyllum excelsum, N " ! " # Grevillea venusta, V # """"""" # Hernandia bivalvis, N ! Kunzea flavescens, N ! Calliope ! ! Macropteranthes leiocaulis, N " ! Oldenlandia gibsonii, E ! Parsonsia kroombitensis, V ! , V Parsonsia larcomensis !!!!" ! ! Rhodamnia angustifolia, E !" ! Rhodamnia glabrescens, N " ! Samadera bidwilli, V " # " " # ! Senna acclinis, N " !!!"" " # #!"" ! Xylosma ovatum, N # " ##

! Zieria actites, E " Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Project Area Community ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! N O T E S: ! 3D Environmental DIGITAL CADASTRAL DATA BASE Figure 4. Threatened species - NC Act Vegetation Assessment © The State of Queensland (Department of Natural Arrow LNG Plant Supplementary Report & Mapping Specialists Resources) [2011] to the EIS Terrestrial Ecology Study P. O. Box 959 Source: Source: EHP Herbrecs Database Extract ! Kenmore, Qld 4069 August 2012 Client Phone: (07) 3411 9072; (07) 3878 4344 Coffey Environments Mobile: 0447 822 119; 0409 426 916 0 5 10 15 20 www.3denvironmental.com.au File Path Date A4 Kilometres Scale 1:647,233 Drawn By DG Checked DS C:\Users\Owner\Documents\Clients\3D Environmental\Curtis\3d_Curtis_Fig4_A4L.mxd 30/10/2012

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! Rockhampton " Inset ! ! É " " ! Legend Botanical Name - EPBC Status E - Endangered, V - Vulnerable, N - Near Theratened

" Apatophyllum olsenii, V " " " Atalaya collina, E "" "" " Bosistoa transversa, V " " Cycas megacarpa, E " "" " ! " " " Cycas ophiolitica, E """"

" Grevillea venusta, V " " " Parsonsia larcomensis, V " " Samadera bidwilli, V "" " Project Area Mt Larcom """"" ! " Gladstone """"" " ! " """" " Gladstone !

"""" """"""" See Inset """ " " "

"""""""

Calliope ! "

" " " " "

Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community N O T E S: Figure 5. Threatened species - EPBC Act 3D Environmental DIGITAL CADASTRAL DATA BASE Vegetation Assessment © The State of Queensland (Department of Natural Arrow LNG Plant Supplementary Report & Mapping Specialists Resources) [2011] to the EIS Terrestrial Ecology Study P. O. Box 959 Source: Source: EHP Herbrecs Database Extract ! Kenmore, Qld 4069 August 2012 Client Phone: (07) 3411 9072; (07) 3878 4344 Coffey Environments Mobile: 0447 822 119; 0409 426 916 0 5 10 15 20 www.3denvironmental.com.au File Path Date A4 Kilometres Scale 1:647,233 Drawn By DG Checked DS C:\Users\Owner\Documents\Clients\3D Environmental\Curtis\3d_Curtis_Fig4_A4L.mxd 30/10/2012

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

Table 11. Summary of threatened species identified in desktop review. Species NC Act EPBC EIS Regional Notes Habitat Potential Search Effort Revised Act Likelihood Distribution Habitat Sufficient Likelihood (assessed Present in Assessment by Project Area Ecosure 2011) Actephila NT NA Low A Queensland endemic Five records within Dry rainforest Yes Yes: All potentially Low: Suitable Sessiliflora restricted to coastal and 100km buffer with and vine thicket. suitable habitats habitat has been sub-coastal vine forests nearest record 2.6 km Preference for on both mainland comprehensively between Bowling Green west of TWAF 8. A fertile alluvial and Curtis Island assessed and the Bay in the north, to single Herbrecs record soils. have been species was not Yarool (near Monto) in exists on the northern comprehensively recorded. the south (Harden et al. end of Curtis Island assessed. 2006). approximately 36 km north of the Arrow LNG Plant, Alyxia magnifolia LC NA Low NA Removed from Vine thicket on NA Yes NA schedules of the NC Act. a range of Currently listed as ‘least substrates. concern’. Atalaya calcicola LC NA Low NA Removed from Dry rainforest NA Yes NA schedules of the NC Act. and vine thicket. Currently listed as ‘least concern’ Atalaya collina E E Low A Queensland and Seven records within Dry rainforest Yes Yes; All potentially Low: Suitable bioregional endemic that 100 km buffer, all within and vine thicket, suitable habitats habitat has been is restricted to only two the Yarwun area west of metamorphic (RE 12.11.4) on comprehensively populations in Gladstone. Nearest rocks. both mainland and assessed and the Queensland: west of record is 7.8 km west of Curtis Island have species was not Gladstone at Yarwun mainland tunnel launch been recorded. and near Ubobo, west of site. comprehensively Miriam Vale (DSEWPaC assessed. 2012). Atalaya rigida LC NA Low NA Removed from NA Yes NA schedules of the NC Act. Currently listed as ‘least concern’. Bosistoa LC V Low Known from the Listed as vulnerable in Semi-evergreen Yes Yes: All potentially Low: Suitable transversa Richmond River, New EIS under NC Act rainforest and suitable habitats habitat has been South Wales in the although should be 'least vine thicket. (RE 12.11.4) on comprehensively south to Mount Larcom concern'. 17 Records both mainland and assessed and the Three leaved near Gladstone in the within 100 km buffer. All Curtis Island have species was not bosistoa north. records from semi- been recorded.

Species NC Act EPBC EIS Regional Notes Habitat Potential Search Effort Revised Act Likelihood Distribution Habitat Sufficient Likelihood (assessed Present in Assessment by Project Area Ecosure 2011) evergreen vine thicket comprehensively on metamorphic and assessed. volcanic geologies. Nearest record 1 km west of TWAF 8. Bulbophyllum V V Very Low An epiphtyic orchid Two Records within 100 Araucarian No Yes Very Low: No globuliforme known only from hoop km buffer within notophyll vine suitable habitat in pine (Araucarian araucarian notophyll forest. the project area. cunninghamii) upper vine forest. Nearest Miniature moss branches. Occurs from record at Kroombit Tops orchid McPherson Range of 67 km southwest of northeast New South project area Wales to southeast Queensland in the Maleny and Noosa areas of the Wide Bay district of Queensland (Stanley & Ross, 1989; Weston & Hill, 1993); and in the Calliope Range inland from Gladstone, Queensland (Harrison, 2002). Cupaniopsis V V Low to A Queensland and All prior records of Semi-evergreen Yes although Yes Very Low: Study shirleyana Moderate bioregional endemic that Cupaniopsis shirleyana vine thicket. outside area falls the is restricted to the within 100km buffer revised revised regional Brisbane to Gympie surrounding project area distribution for distribution for the Wedge leaf area (G. Guymer pers. have been re-assigned the species. species. tuckeroo comm. Sept 12). to an undescribed taxon (Cupaniopsis) which at date of assessment, had not been assigned a hispid name. Cupaniopsis shirleyana, being restricted to the area between Gympie and Brisbane, has no further relevance to the project and reference should be removed from

Cycas megacarpa E E Low to Cycas megacarpa is Numerous Herbrecs Woodland with Yes Yes: Low: Moderate endemic to central records within 100 km ironbark and Comprehensive Comprehensive Queensland, occurring buffer with nearest spotted gum. assessment of all assessment of all from Bouldercombe in record 4.2 km west of potentially potentially suitable the north, to near TWAF 8 on the western impacted habitats. Woolooga in the south, slope of Mt Larcom. woodland habitats in woodland or open Mostly associated with on both mainland woodland dominated by granite and acid volcanic and Curtis Island eucalypts. soils. has been undertaken.

Dansiea elliptica NT NA Low to A Queensland endemic Eight records within 100 Dry rainforest / Yes Yes: All potentially Low: Suitable habitat has been Dansiea Moderate that is restricted to km buffer with nearest semi -evergreen suitable habitats disjunct populations record 7 km south- vine thicket . (RE 12.11.4) on comprehensively near Deepwater, the southwest of mainland both mainland and assessed and the Gladstone and tunnel launch site. Curtis Island have species was not Rockhampton areas and been recorded. the wet tropics of comprehensively northern Qld (Harden et assessed. al. 2006, ALA 2012).

Denhamia V V Low to A Queensland endemic Not predicted in the Semi-evergreen No Yes Very Low: No parvifolia Moderate known from Eidsvold to latest PMST search vine thicket, suitable habitat in Chinchilla and east of within the 100 km buffer. often on red project area. Kingaroy in Queensland. No records within 100 soils. km buffer and outside species known range. Reference to the species should be removed from supplementary EIS. Graptophyllum NT NA Low to A Queensland endemic 12 records located Rainforest and Marginal Yes Low: excelsum Moderate between Gladstone in within 100 km buffer vine thicket, Comprehensive the south and the with nearest recorded mostly on upper assessment of Atherton Tablelands in location 6 km northwest slopes and potential habitats the north (Harden et al. of TWAF 8. ridgelines. undertaken. The 2006, ALA 2012). site does not provide favourable 56

Species NC Act EPBC EIS Regional Notes Habitat Potential Search Effort Revised Act Likelihood Distribution Habitat Sufficient Likelihood (assessed Present in Assessment by Project Area Ecosure 2011) topographic location nor features. Hernandia bivalvis NT NA Low to A Queensland endemic Nearest record 1 km Semi-evergreen Yes Yes: All potentially Low: Suitable Grease nut Moderate that is restricted to west of TWAF8. Nine vine thicket. suitable habitats habitat has been central coastal and records within 100 km (RE 12.11.4) on comprehensively southeastern buffer, nearest on the both mainland and assessed and the Queensland. Southern eastern footslopes of Mt Curtis Island have species was not limit is Brisbane River Larcom 4 km west of been recorded. north of Ipswich (Harden mainland tunnel launch comprehensively et al. 2006) and near site. . assessed. Warwick (Fernvale area). Disjunct populations are known from Proserpine district and near Daintree (ALA 2012).

Macropteranthes NT NA Low to A Queensland endemic 28 records within the Dry rainforest / Yes Yes: All potentially Low: Suitable leiocaulis Moderate that is restricted to 100 km buffer. Nearest semi-evergreen suitable habitats habitat has been Southern between Binjour Plateau location 3.5 km west of vine thicket. (RE 12.11.4) on comprehensively bonewood near Gayndah in the TWAF 8. both mainland and assessed and the south to Mingela Range Curtis Island have species was not near Charters Towers in been recorded. the north (Harden et al. comprehensively 2006, ALA 2012). assessed.

Macropteranthes NT NA Low to Coastal areas of central No herbarium records Dry rainforest/ Yes Yes: All potentially Low: Suitable fitzalanii Moderate Queensland from although AVH (2012) semi-evergreen suitable habitats habitat has been Northern western slopes of Mount shows known records in vine thicket. (RE 12.11.4) on comprehensively bonewood Dryander to north of the vicinity of Gladstone both mainland and assessed and the Rockhampton and (a 1904 record) and a Curtis Island have species was not offshore islands off 1988 record from the been recorded. Proserpine and Mount Larcom Range). comprehensively Gladstone district. AVH records from assessed. Australian National Herbarium. Parsonsia V V Low to Endemic to central and Herbarium records 3 km Woodland and Marginal Yes Low; Woodland larcomensis Moderate southeast Queensland west of TWAF 8 on shrubland, habitats have been (SEQ Bioregion) where Mount Larcom as well typically in comprehensively 57

Species NC Act EPBC EIS Regional Notes Habitat Potential Search Effort Revised Act Likelihood Distribution Habitat Sufficient Likelihood (assessed Present in Assessment by Project Area Ecosure 2011) Mount Larcom it is recorded from the as 6 km north of TWAF elevated surveyed. Project silkpod mountain peaks of 8 in non-remnant locations. site presents sub- Mount Wheeler (near paddock (possible optimal Rockhampton), Mount unreliable co-ordinates). topographich Larcom (near location and Gladstone) and Mount features. Perry (near Bundaberg) and a riverine habitat near Byfield (Halford 1998). It has a range of approximately 280 km (Halford 1998).

Parsonsia NT NA Very Low Queensland endemic Old herbarium collection Dry rainforest Marginal - Yes: All potentially Very Low: lenticellata from northern and (Canberra) 30 km west and vine thicket consider suitable habitats Woodland habitats central coastal and sub of Gladstone (1943 removing (RE 12.11.4) on have been coastal sites. record) as sourced from reference in both mainland and comprehensively AVH (2012). supplementary Curtis Island have surveyed. Project been site presents sub- comprehensively optimal topographic assessed. location and features. (Quassia) V V Low to A Queensland endemic Five records in study Better Marginal Yes: General Very Low; Habitat Samadera bidwillii Moderate currently known from area. Now listed as developed survey of the study for the species is several localities Samadera bidwillii - eucalypt area confirmed marginal in study between Scawfell Island Nearest record 4 km woodland low suitability of area and nearest near Mackay, and west of mainland tunnel habitats, often in habitat for the collections are Goomboorian, north of launch site - Upper riparian areas. species in the associated with Gympie (TSCC 2008). western slopes of Mount project site. much wetter Larcom. environments on Mt Larcom to the west Senna acclinis NT NA Low to Coastal districts and Four records from within Dry rainforest Yes Yes: All potentially Low: Suitable Moderate adjacent tablelands of the 100 km buffer with and vine thicket. suitable habitats habitat has been New South Wales and low precision record 28 (RE 12.11.4) on comprehensively Queensland north from km south of mainland both mainland and assessed and the the Illawarra in New tunnel launch site . Mis- Curtis Island have species was not South Wales to Eungella spelled as Senna aclinis been recorded. in Queensland. in EIS. comprehensively assessed.

Species NC Act EPBC EIS Regional Notes Habitat Potential Search Effort Revised Act Likelihood Distribution Habitat Sufficient Likelihood (assessed Present in Assessment by Project Area Ecosure 2011) Taeniophyllum LC V Low Occurs in Queensland Sub-optimal habitat and Epiphyte of No Yes Very Low: muelleri from Cape York no records in the vicinity. twigs in closed Unsuitable habitat Minute orchid Peninsula, south to the Nearest records on forest habitats. in study area. Wilson River, west of Fraser Island Coast and Wauchope in New South central Queensland Wales. coast. The ´vulnerable‘ listing of this species under the EPBC Act applies only to the species on Norfolk Island only. Zieria actities NT NA Very Low A bioregional endemic Generally found on Elevated No Yes Very Low: Sub- restricted to upper elevated ridgelines. ridgelines and optimal habitat slopes of Mount Larcom. Specimens on the rocky crevasses. presented in project summit of Mount Larcom site. 3 km to west of TWAF 8. Not Assessed in Ecosure 2011 and identified in Herbrecs data extract ( EHP 2012)

Parsonsia V NA Not Restricted endemic to Seven records within Eucalypt Marginal Yes Low: Low suitability kroombitensis Assessed central eastern 100 km buffer. Nearest woodland habitat. Queensland. record 25 km south of habitats, study area, Boyne typically in Range in woodland elevated habitat. locations (Kroombit Tops). Acacia sp. NT NA Not Undescribed taxon One record within the Rocky Marginal Yes Low: Low suitability (Castletower) Assessed endemic to southeast 100 km buffer, 30 km pavements and habitat Queensland. south of project area. associated woodlands - granites? Alyxia sharpei NT NA Not Southeast Queensland 19 records within Rainforest and Yes Yes: All potentially Low: Assessed endemic occurring south 100 km buffer. Nearest dry vine thicket suitable habitats Comprehensive from Agnes Water record 45 km southwest on a range of (RE 12.11.4) on assessment of district. of mainland tunnel geologies and both mainland and potential habitat launch site. landforms. Curtis Island have was undertaken been and the species comprehensively was not found. assessed.

Species NC Act EPBC EIS Regional Notes Habitat Potential Search Effort Revised Act Likelihood Distribution Habitat Sufficient Likelihood (assessed Present in Assessment by Project Area Ecosure 2011) Argophyllum NT NA Not Occurs in the Eungella 12 records within Rainforest and Marginal Yes: Survey of Low: Habitat in nullumense Assessed range south to far 100 km buffer. Nearest moist locations project site did not project site of low northern New South record 32 km south of in eucalypt identify suitable suitability for the Wales. Red Rover Road site at forest, habitat. species. Mt Castletower. particularly on drainage lines. Xylosma ovata NT NA Not Central coastal Four records within 100 Littoral vine Yes Yes: Potentially Low: Coast xylosma Assessed Queensland and km buffer. Nearest thicket. suitable habitat in Comprehensive offshore islands. record 47 kmSE of the project site has assessment of launch site 1 at Turkey been subject to suitable habitat did Beach. comprehensive not locate the survey. species.

Eucalyptus NT NA Not Southern sub-coastal 11 records within Elevated No Yes Very Low: No decolor Assessed Queensland endemic 100 km project area eucalypt suitable habitat from Mt Castletower buffer. Nearest record woodlands on south to near 35 km south of TWAF 7 rangelands Biggenden. at Mt Castletower. (above 350 m) .

Kunzea NT NA Not Southeast Queensland Four records in 100 km Elevated No Yes Very Low: No flavescens Assessed endemic occurring in buffer around project eucalypt suitable habitat area with nearest record woodlands on Yellow kunzea subcoastal habitats north from Ipswich to 32 km south of TWAF 7 rangelands just south of Gladstone. at Mt Castletower. (above 350 m) .

Rhodamnia NT Not Central and southeast 18 records in 100 km Araucarian No Yes Very Low: No glabrescens Assessed Queensland endemic buffer with nearest notophyll vine suitable habitat in restricted to sub-coastal record 46 km south of forest. project area habitats from Proserpine project area at Bulburin (disjunct) to near Miriam State Forest. Vale. Cassinia collina V Not A southeast 1 record within the Eucalypt Marginal Yes: Low: Assessed Queensland endemic 100 km buffer, 50 km woodland Comprehensive Comprehensive restricted to populations south of project area habitats with assessment of searches on the Many Peaks (TWAF 7). Located in range of potentially suitable undertaken and range south of the Many Peaks Range understorey woodland habitats habitat is of low Gladstone and area south of Gladstone. shubs. Typically in project area. suitability. Biggenden, Mt Walsh elevated districts. locations.

Species NC Act EPBC EIS Regional Notes Habitat Potential Search Effort Revised Act Likelihood Distribution Habitat Sufficient Likelihood (assessed Present in Assessment by Project Area Ecosure 2011) Grevillea venusta V V Not A central and southeast Nearest record 36 km Sandy soils Marginal Yes Low Assessed Queensland endemic. south of project area derived form (Red Rover Road site) in granites and Mt Castletower region. other acid volcanic soil types in eucalypt woodland habitats. Identified in EPBC Search although not identified in Herbrecs database (EPH 2012). Not assessed in EIS study

Cycas ophilitica E E Not A central Queensland Nearest record 53 km Woodland on No Yes Very Low: Assessed endemic restricted to northwest of TWAF 8 soils derived Unsuitable habitat between Marlborough Restricted to from and Rockhampton. serpentinite soils. No serpentinite. suitable habitat. Cossinia E E Not A central Queensland Nearest record 55 km Well developed No Yes Low; Unsuitable australiana Assessed endemic restricted to west of TWAF 8. vine thicket and habitat in project between Gympie and Occurs in vine thicket araucarian vine area. Cossinia Rockhampton. habitat which exists on thicket on more the Curtis Island site. fertile soils. Germainia V V Not Restricted to two widely Nearest record 60 km Occurs in a Marginal Yes Low capitata Assessed disjunct Australian southeast of project area range of populations from north (Red Rover Site) in the eucalypt and of Bundaberg and Agnus Water / Miriam melaleuca Torres Strait islands. vale area. woodland Also occurs in Papua habitats, Asia typically associated with sandier soils in moist locations. Leucopogon V V Not Known from the No records within 100 Associated with No Yes Very Low: No cuspidatus Assessed Blackdown Tableland in km. Occurs in mountain mountain top suitable habitat in the south to the Mount top heath - no suitable heath and project area. Stewart area in the habitat in the study area. woodland north. habitats where it occur on soils derived from granite and serpentinite. Sophora fraseri V V Not Restricted to Nearest records 63 km Typically Marginal Yes Low: No suitable

Species NC Act EPBC EIS Regional Notes Habitat Potential Search Effort Revised Act Likelihood Distribution Habitat Sufficient Likelihood (assessed Present in Assessment by Project Area Ecosure 2011) Assessed southeastern southwest of project associated with habitat. Queensland and area (Red Rover Road creek banks and northeastern New South site) in Boyne Valley. other moist Wales from the Casino habitats where it area north to near may occur in Miriam Vale. vine thicket, riparian woodland and well developed eucalypt forest. Streblus E E Not EPBC significant Species not listed in Occurs in well No Yes Very Low pendulinus Assessed species confined to Census of Queensland developed Norfolk Island. Listing in Flora (Bostock and primary Siah’s backbone MNES database search Holland, 2010) where it rainforest is considered erroneous is recognised as habitat. and should be Streblus brunonianus. discounted. EPBC listing applies only to Norfolk Island populations. EPBC Act Categories: E = Endangered; V = Vulnerable; NA = Not Applicable NC Act Categories: E = Endangered; V = Vulnerable; NT = Near Threatened; LC = Least Concern

5.2 Fauna Assessment

Field assessments undertaken by EcoSmart Ecology identified 101 vertebrates consisting of three frogs, 13 reptiles, 72 birds and 13 mammals. Twenty-nine species were not recorded in previous studies (i.e., Ecosure 2011), taking the total number of species recorded from the study area during Arrow surveys to 197 (Appendix C).The majority of these species are not protected (i.e., not EVNT) by either state or Australian government legislation.

Exotic species that were recorded during EcoSmart surveys included dingo (Canis lupus dingo), feral cat (Felis catus), European fox (Vulpes vulpes), European hare (Lepus europaeus), cane toad (Rhinella marina), domestic horse (Equus caballus) and feral pig (Sus scrofa). These species are likely to be impacting on native vertebrate values (e.g., predation, habitat modification, and competition).

Three EVNT taxa were recorded during EcoSmart surveys including glossy black-cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami), water mouse (Xeromys myoides) (active nesting hollows recorded), and eastern curlew (Numenius madagascariensis). Two of these three species (glossy-black cockatoo and water mouse) were recorded for the first time within the Arrow LNG project area although all had been previously recorded from the local area. Black-necked stork (Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus), a near threatened species under the NC Act, was recorded in the local area.

Based on current field survey data and habitat assessment, numerous EVNT species are either known to occur or may possibly occur. Table 12 lists the 25 birds, 11 mammals, 10 reptiles and 1 amphibian assessed by Ecosure (2011) plus an additional 26 species not considered in the EIS that have been identified in database searches as possibly occurring in the project area. Whilst a ‘likelihood of occurrence’ assessment has been applied to all species, further field investigation, in particular wet season trapping, is required to refine the assessment for a number of species. A number of locally known (i.e., within 50 km buffer) EVNT species are either unlikely to occur or are transient in nature. There will be no, or negligible impacts, on these species and they have not been assessed in detail.

Dossiers on EVNT species that may occur are provided in Sections 5.3.1 to 5.3.11. Where sufficient data is available to evaluate impacts, these have been discussed. However, outstanding field surveys are required to gather additional data, allowing a number of species to be adequately assessed. As such, the documented assessment (where provided) may be modified following future field investigation.

No ‘Critical Habitat’, as identified under the EPBC Act Critical Habitat register or under the NC Act, is known to occur within the EIS area for any EVNT species. EVNT migratory wader species, including eastern curlew, sooty oystercatcher (Haematopus fuliginosus) and beach stone-curlew (Esacus neglectus), are largely restricted to intertidal sand, mud and mangrove habitats. These taxa, and saltwater crocodile (Crocodylus porosus), are not considered in detail here, but are the subject of a separate studies completed for the SREIS. Shorebirds are addressed in the dedicated shorebird study completed by Ecosure. Crocodiles are addressed under the estuarine and marine ecology studies completed by Coffey Environments. These studies are presented separately to this Terrestrial Ecology study. 63

Table 12. Likelihood evaluation of EVNT vertebrates .

Scientific Name Status EIS Regional Distribution Habitat Potential Notes Survey Effort Revised Common Name Likelihood Habitat in Sufficient Likelihood (Ecosure Project 2011) Area NC ACT ACT EPBC EPBC

Adelotus brevis V NA Moderate Restricted to the east coast of In forest and open No No records occur Yes – no habitat in Low Tusked frog Australia between Mackay country, associated within proximity to the project area. and the mid Co ast of New with water. the project area, South Wales. but are associated with habitat around Kroombit Tops. Aerodramus terraereginae NT NA Moderate Iron Range, Cape York, south Coastal areas, Yes A migratory Yes – not known to Low Australian swiftlet to Mackay. continental islands, species that is occur in the project highland areas, unlikely to frequent area. flies at height the area. above rainforest cleared lands, beaches and gorges. Calyptorhynchus lathami V NA High Paluma in the southern Wet She-oaks in Yes Two individuals Yes – based on Low Glossy black-cockatoo Tropics south along east forests, woodlands seen flying high floristic survey coast to northern Victoria. and well timbered over mainland assessment, watercourses. launch site 1 foraging resources during surveys , in project area are records exist within limited. Incidental 4 km of mainland records will be tunnel launch site. taken in association with survey for other species. Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus NT NA Moderate Northern Australian from the Coastal wetlands, Yes One individual Yes – mobile High Black-necked stork Pilbara to the Sydney along mudflats, lagoons, seen in mudflats species that is the ea stern coast of New irrigated lands. east of project area known to occur. South Wales. on Curtis Island. Epthianura crocea E CE Moderate Isolated population know Saltbush, sedges, No Although records Yes – no suitable Low Yellow chat from the Gladstone/Curtis swamp-cane of the species habitat.

Scientific Name Status EIS Regional Distribution Habitat Potential Notes Survey Effort Revised Common Name Likelihood Habitat in Sufficient Likelihood (Ecosure Project 2011) Area NC ACT ACT EPBC EPBC

Island region, predominantly grass, seasonal occur on Curtis found along wetlands. Island, the species Queensland/Northern resides in the Territory Border and across northeast corner of the top e nd into Western the Island and is Australia not known from the project area likely due to lack of habitat. Erythrotriorchis radiatus E V Low (to Entire east coast of Open forests, Yes Habitat for this Yes – searches of Low Red goshawk Moderate) Queensland and a cross top woodlands species within the all potential end of the Northern Territory especially near project Area is woodland habitats into Western Australia rivers, wetlands marginal. Very few have been and rainforest known records undertaken. fringes. suggest it is not a regular inhabitant of the area. Falco hypoleucos NT NA Low Central areas of al l mainland Inland plains, No Only two records Yes – unsuitable Low Grey falcon states, core are a around the gibber deserts, suggest it is not a habitat. Simpson Desert. pastoral lands and regular inhabitant timbered of the area.Species creeklines. rarely known to occur this far east. Geophaps scripta scripta V V Low (to Eastern Queensland, and Grassed Yes No records from Yes – mainland High Squatter pigeon Moderate) northern New South Wales, woodlands, grassy Curtis Island, habitat presents (mainland avoiding settled areas. plains. individuals known suitable habitat. only) from proximity of mainland sites. Haematopus fuliginosus NT NA High Coastal areas of Australia, Intertidal rocky Yes A sooty Yes – further High Sooty oystercatcher occurring in all states. shores. oystercatcher was assessment recorded by URS associated with (2009) at Santos wader survey. LNG. However, the species is usually associated with rocky habitats, which are not

Scientific Name Status EIS Regional Distribution Habitat Potential Notes Survey Effort Revised Common Name Likelihood Habitat in Sufficient Likelihood (Ecosure Project 2011) Area NC ACT ACT EPBC EPBC

abundant within proximity to proposed Arrow activities. It may therefore occur as transient individuals. Esacus neglectus V NA Recorded Coastal regions from Open undisturbed Yes Observed by Yes – further Known Beach stone-curlew Nambucca Heads to beaches, tidal Ecosure (2011) at assessment Exmouth Western Australia. mudflats, sandflats, the mouth of associated with mangroves. Graham Creek. wader survey. Suitable habitat occurs throughout much of the Curtis Island and mainland sites. Numenius madagascariensis NT NA Recorded Coastal areas of all Estuaries, tidal Yes Eastern curlews Yes – further Known Eastern curlew Australian states. mudflats, were seen to both assessment mangroves, the east and west associated with saltmarshes. of boatshed point wader survey. and roosting during high tide at mainland launch site 1. Lewinia pectoralis NT NA Moderate East of Great Dividing Range Swamps and No Only a single Yes – no suitable Low Lewin's Rail between Port Douglas habitats with tall record from within habitat. Queensland south to Mt. grass and reeds, mangrove habitat. Lofty Ranges South Australia. forest edges, Possible that this creeks, paddocks was a transient and wet heath. individual as mangroves are not a preferred habitat of Lewin’s rail. Lack of suitable habitat throughout much of survey area.

Scientific Name Status EIS Regional Distribution Habitat Potential Notes Survey Effort Revised Common Name Likelihood Habitat in Sufficient Likelihood (Ecosure Project 2011) Area NC ACT ACT EPBC EPBC

Macronectes giganteus E E Low Open waters along all Associated with Yes Records along the Yes Low Southern giant-petrel Australian states except pelagic waters. coast are sparse (possible Northern Territory. and infrequent transient visits to the records) coastline are unlikely to occur in healthy individuals. Melithreptus gularis NT NA High Northern Half of Australia, Dry eucalypt forest Yes Although suitable Yes – searches of Low Black-chinned honeyeater avoiding central desert, and woodlands. habitat is present suitable habitats (possible following down east within the project undertaken. transient Australian coast into Victoria area, the lack of Infrequent records) and South Australia. records and lack of inhabitant. individuals found during Eucalyptus flowering events indicates the species does not frequent the area. Neochmia ruficauda E E Very Low Northern Australia from Near water, grassy Yes . Only two records Yes – not known to Very Low Star finch southern Cape York across to flats with bushes, exist within the occur in project Kimberley region and through low trees, reeds, past 20 years. area. shark bay and Ashburton rushes, irrigated These and other Ranges. Population through crops, sugar cane. records all occur central Queensland critically around endangered. Rockhampton. Nettapus coromandelianus NT NA Moderate Eastern Australia from Cape Freshwater No Lack of suitable Yes- No suitable Low Cotton pygmy-goose York Peninsula south to swamps, lakes, habitat reduces the habitat. Queensland/New South lagoons, dams with likelihood of Wales Border. floating vegetation occurrence. and deep water. Ninox strenua V NA High Eungella Queensland south Mountain forest, Yes Multiple records of Yes – spotlighting High Powerful owl along eastern Australia to Mt gullies, coastal the species occur undertaken in Burr South Australia. forests and on Curtis Island. suitable habitats. woodlands. Records occur Further work in approximately early 2013 basline 5 km to the surveys will northwest of the increase rigour 67

Scientific Name Status EIS Regional Distribution Habitat Potential Notes Survey Effort Revised Common Name Likelihood Habitat in Sufficient Likelihood (Ecosure Project 2011) Area NC ACT ACT EPBC EPBC

Arrow Energy project area. Poephila cincta cincta E E Low Cape York Peninsula and Grassy scrublands, Yes No recent records Yes – not known to Low Black-throated finch central regions of north woodlands, dunes, of the species occur in project area Queensland. Isolated pandanus near indicate the population on New England water. species is no Tableland. longer within local area or region. Pterodroma heraldic E CE Low Open waters off coast of Associated with Yes No known records. Yes- unsuitable Low Herald petrel Queensland and New South pelagic waters. Species rarely habitat. Wales. comes to shore of mainland Australia. Pterodroma neglecta neglecta V V Low Open Waters of southern Associated with Yes No known records. Yes – unsuitable Low Kermadec petrel Queensland and Northern pelagic waters. Species rarely habitat. New South Wales. comes to shore of mainland Australia. Rostratula australis V V Low (to Victoria, New South Wales Well vegetated No Paucity of records Yes – unsuitable Low Australian painted snipe Moderate) across into southern South shallows and indicates the habitat. Australian and the eastern margins of species is not half of Northern Territory and wetlands, dams, common within the across the top end into sewage ponds, wet local area or Western Australia. pastures, marshy region. Habitat areas. poor within project area. Sternula albifrons E NA Moderate (to Coastal waters off the coast Coastal waters and Yes Suitable habitat Yes – not known Low Little tern High) of all Australian states. bays. present, however a from the project lack of records area. indicates that the species does not frequent the area. Tadorna radjah NT NA Moderate Eastern Queensland up into Wet season: No Lack of habitat and Yes – no suitable Low Radjah shelduck Cape York Peninsula and shallow waters, paucity records habitat. across into the Top End. fresh, salt or suggest it is not a brackish swamps regular inhabitant and river margins, of the area. dry season

Scientific Name Status EIS Regional Distribution Habitat Potential Notes Survey Effort Revised Common Name Likelihood Habitat in Sufficient Likelihood (Ecosure Project 2011) Area NC ACT ACT EPBC EPBC

congregate on permanent lagoons, mangroves, tidal flats. Turnix melanogaster V V Low (to Between Fraser Island and Leaf litter in drie r Marginal Records occur Yes – marginal Low Black-breasted button-quail Moderate) slightly north of Lismore New rainforests, vine along Boyne habitat that has South Wales. thickets, lantana on Island, however been subject to rainforest edges, there are no searches and no hoop pine records known platelets were plantation. from Curtis Island noted. and suitable habitat is extremely minor in extent and unlikely to attract any individuals. Lophoictinia isura NT NA Very High Top end of Northern Australia Heathlands, Yes Individual recorded Yes – known to High Square-tailed kite and down eastern side of bushlands, flying from Laird occur Australia with population in woodlands, Point, habitat south west Western Australia. timbered water suitable for courses species.

Accipiter novaehollandiae NT NA High The entire east co ast of Rainforest, forest, Yes Known from within Yes – known to High Grey goshawk Australia and across the top taller woodlands, 5 km of Arrow LNG occur in vicinity. end through the Kimberleys. water courses. plant near Ship Hill and within 2.5 km of mainland tunnel launch site.

Chalinolobus dwyeri V V Low Blackdown Tablelands Wet and dry Yes No known records, No – bat trapping to Very Low Large-eared pied bat Queensland to Wollongong eucalypt forest. outside of known be undertaken New South Wales. range. during summer baseline surveys. Chalinolobus picatus NT NA Moderate Central Queensland into Dry sclerophyll Yes Few records from No – further Moderate Little pied bat northern New South Wales forest, woodland the Gladstone assessment and eastern South Australia and scrub. area, none from undertaken with Curtis Island. targeted bat survey. Habitat is suitable

Scientific Name Status EIS Regional Distribution Habitat Potential Notes Survey Effort Revised Common Name Likelihood Habitat in Sufficient Likelihood (Ecosure Project 2011) Area NC ACT ACT EPBC EPBC

for the species. Dasyurus hallucatus LC E Moderate Once wide spread now in Rocky eucalypt Yes No records occur Yes – marginal Low Northern quoll isolated populations including woodlands though within proximity to habitat. around the Carnarvon Range diversity of the project area. – Bowen areas. forested habitats Habitat for the utilised. species is marginal. Hipposideros semoni E E Low Eastern Queensland north of Rainforest and No The closet records Yes – unsuitable Low Semon`s leaf-nosed bat Cairns, with few reco rds at savannah of this species habitat. Kroombit Tops. woodlands. occur at Kroombit Tops. Kerivoula papuensis NT NA High From Macilwraith Range Rainforest, wet and No No records occur Yes –unsuitable Low Golden-tipped bat Queensland to B ega New dry sclerophyll within the project habitat. South Wales, localised forest. area and most populations. individuals found occur in close proximity to Bulburin State Forest or Kroombit Tops. Macroderma gigas V NA Moderate In north east Queensland Roosts in large No No suitable Yes- unsuitable Low Ghost bat from Macilwraith Range south caves or mine roosting habitat habitat. to Gladstone. shafts. occurs on the project area. The closest records of this species are approximately 100 km north of the project area. Nyctophilus corbeni V V Low From Gladstone region south Dry woodlands and Marginal Only two records No – further Low Eastern long-eared bat west through north ea stern shrublands. suggest it is not a assessment New South Wales, through regular inhabitant undertaken with southern South Australian of the area. Project targeted bat survey. and Western Australia. area occurs at northern end of species ranges

Scientific Name Status EIS Regional Distribution Habitat Potential Notes Survey Effort Revised Common Name Likelihood Habitat in Sufficient Likelihood (Ecosure Project 2011) Area NC ACT ACT EPBC EPBC

Phascolarctos cinereus V V Moderate Eastern Australia from Sclerophyl forest Yes Closest record to Partly. Track and Moderate Koala Chillagoe Queensland south and woodlands. EIS operations is scat searches to Mt. Lofty Ranges South 13 km, no Koala should be expanded Australia. records from Curtis during the early Island in recent 2013 baseline years. Essential survey to improve habitat for the robustness. species exists at Surveys may also the mainland benifit from launch site. assessing habitat value using federal survey guidelines. Pteropus poliocephalus LC V Low Eastern Australia between Eucalypt Yes Large temporary Yes – suitable Moderate Grey-headed flying-fox Gladstone Queensland and woodlands, forest, camp known from habitat has been Melbourne, Victoria. mangroves. Calliope area, assessed records of grey- comprehensively. headed flying foxes from both Curtis Island and in proximity to mainland sites (Henry Grezgorski pers comm.). Taphozous australis V NA Moderate East coast of Queensland Roosts in sea Yes Three records of No – further Low (outside Coastal sheathtail bat south to Shoalwater Bay caves and fissures the species occur assessment of known close to the in proximity to undertaken with range) coastline. Forages TWAF 8, however targeted bat survey. over mangroves these records are and open forest. south of known range. Xeromys myoides V V High Two distinct populations, one Mangroves and Yes Active hollows Yes – presence Known Water mouse across top end of Northern adjacent marine found within confirmed at Curtis Territory, other between couch. mangroves to the Island site. Proserpine and the sunshine east and west of Coast Boatshed Point and an abandoned nest at Red Rover

Scientific Name Status EIS Regional Distribution Habitat Potential Notes Survey Effort Revised Common Name Likelihood Habitat in Sufficient Likelihood (Ecosure Project 2011) Area NC ACT ACT EPBC EPBC

Road Site. Acanthophis antarcticus NT NA Moderate Northern Queensland and Rainforest, heath, Yes Suitable habitat for No – further Low Common death adder eastern Northern Territory woodlands. the species is seasonal survey south to sou theast present, however required. Queensland and into central the lack of records New South Wales. Also along suggest the southern edge of South species does not Australia into Western occur with any Australia. frequency in the area. Antairoserpens warro NT Low Charters Towers to Cape Dry tropical forest Marginal Paucity of records No – further Low Robust burrowing snake York Queensland. and woodlands. indicates the seasonal baseline species is not survey to be common within the undertaken during local area or early 2013. region. Well outside species range. Crocodylus porosus V NA Moderate Coastal regions between the Swamps, wetlands, Yes Individuals are Yes Moderate Estuarine crocodile Kimberley’s Western large river known from the Australia and Maryborough systems, northern end of Queensland. mangroves. Curtis Island, however little available habitat within the project area is suitable to be frequented by estuarine crocodiles. Delma torquata V V Moderate South east Queensland to Rocky areas Marginal No known nearby Yes – marginal Low Collared delma Bunya Mountains and associated with dry records suggest habitat and outside Blackdown Tableland. open forests, and the species does known range of from Brigalow not inhabit the species. associations. area. Outside of known species range.

Scientific Name Status EIS Regional Distribution Habitat Potential Notes Survey Effort Revised Common Name Likelihood Habitat in Sufficient Likelihood (Ecosure Project 2011) Area NC ACT ACT EPBC EPBC

Denisonia maculata V V Low Dawson River drainage and Low lying areas No Lack of suitable Yes – no habitat in Very Low Ornamental snake Bowen Basin region of with cracking soils, habitat and records project area. Queensland. often associated indicate the with brigalow and species does not Gilgai habitats. occur within the project area. Lack of Brigalow habitat within the study area. Egernia rugosa V NA Moderate From St. George to southern Dry open forest, No No known nearby Yes – no habitat in Low Yakka skink Cape York Peninsula woodlands and records or any project area. rocky areas, fallen records from Curtis logs, deep rock Island suggest the crevices, rabbit species does not warrens inhabit the area. Furina dunmalli V V Low South eastern interior of Brigalow scrub Yes Only a single No – further Low Dunmall's snake Queensland and adjacent record suggests it seasonal baseline New South Wales, is not a regular survey to be associated with brigalow inhabitant of the undertaken during habitats. area. Outside of early 2013. known range. Ophioscincus cooloolensis NT NA Low Rainforest at Co oloola Sandy soils of No Species does not Yes – no habitat in Low Cooloola snake-skink National Park and Frasier sand dune based occur near project project area. Island. rainforests. area. Well outside of species range. Paradelma orientalis V V Low Central southern Queensland Sandstone ridges, Yes Known from Boyne No – further Low Brigalow scaly-foot as far north as Rockhampton. woodlands and Island, however seasonal baseline vine thicket. never seen on survey to be Curtis Island. undertaken during early 2013. Rheodytes leukops V V Low Associated with Fitzroy River Fast flowing clear No No known nearby Yes- no suitable Very Low Fitzroy river turtle and tributaries. watered streams. records suggest habitat in project the species does area. not inhabit the area. Outside of known range.

Scientific Name Status EIS Regional Distribution Habitat Potential Notes Survey Effort Revised Common Name Likelihood Habitat in Sufficient Likelihood (Ecosure Project 2011) Area NC ACT ACT EPBC EPBC

Litoria freycineti V NA Not Assessed Fraser Island south to Inhabits wallum No No suitable habitat Yes – no suitable Low Wallum rocketfrog Southern end of sunshine swamps and occurs within the habitat. coast including sand islands. wetlands. project area.

Litoria pearsoniana (Kroombit E NA Not Assessed Mid eastern New South Associated with No Restricted to the Yes – no suitable Very Low Tops) Wales north to Kroombit tops. flowing streams, Kroombit Tops habitat. Cascade treefrog (Kroombit particularly area. Tops) rainforest streams.

Taudactylus pleione E V Not Assessed Restricted to Kroombit Tops. Restricted to No No suitable habitat Yes – no suitable Very Low Kroombit tinkerfrog Rainforest streams available. habitat. at high altitude.

Charadrius australis NT NA Not Assessed Inland areas of Australian Stony, sparsely No Only a single Yes – no suitable Low Inland dotterel states, only occurring near vegetated plains. record suggests it habitat. the coast in South Australia is not a regular and Western Australia. inhabitant of the area, and range maps suggest a possible misidentification.

Charadrius bicinctus NT NA Not Assessed Migrates to S outhern Tidal mudflats, Yes Only a single Yes – further Moderate Double-banded plover Australian coast from New saltmarsh, margins record suggests it assessment with Zealand, may come as far of wetlands. is not a regular wader survey. north as Gladstone. inhabitant of the area. Northern extreme of range within Australia, species commonly occurs further south.

Climacteris erythrops NT NA Not Assessed South eastern Australia from Tall eucalypt Yes Only a single Yes – outside Low Red-browed treecreeper Tewantin Queensland to forest, mainly on record suggests it known species south eastern Victoria. hilly and is not a regular range. mountainous inhabitant of the country and where area. Outside of these emerge into known range. deep rainforest

Scientific Name Status EIS Regional Distribution Habitat Potential Notes Survey Effort Revised Common Name Likelihood Habitat in Sufficient Likelihood (Ecosure Project 2011) Area NC ACT ACT EPBC EPBC

gullies.

Cyclopsitta diophthalma E E Not Assessed Lowlands east of great Rainforests, No This subspecies is Yes – not suitable Very Low coxeni dividing range between eucalypt facing extinction habitat. Coxen's fig-parrot Gladstone, Queensland and woodlands and (Pizzey and Knight, Hastings, New South Wales. coastal scrub. 2007). Only a single record

suggests it is not a regular inhabitant of the area.

Diomedea exulans V V Not Assessed Southern open oce ans Associated with No Only two records Yes – no suitable Low Wandering albatross between Fremantle, Western open pelagic suggest it is not a habitat. Australia and The waters. regular inhabitant Whitsunday Islands, of the area. Queensland. Species rarely comes to shore of mainland Australia.

Erythrura gouldiae E NA Not Assessed Northern Australia between Savannah Yes Only a single Yes – outside the Very Low Gouldian finch Broome and southern Cape woodlands in far record suggests it known species York Peninsula Northern Australia. is not a regular range. inhabitant of the area. Species no longer considered to occur this far south.

Lathamus discolor E E Not Assessed Throughout Victoria and Forest, woodlands, Yes Only a single Yes – marginal to Low Swift parrot Tasmania, and eastern New plantations, record suggests it species known South Wales, will move as far banksias in pa rks is not a regular range. Suitable north as B owen along the and gardens. inhabitant of the habitat has been east coast of Queensland area. Nearing subject to survey. northern end of species range.

Macronectes halli V V Not Assessed Open waters of Southern Associated with No Only a single Yes – unsuitable Low Northern giant-petrel Australia. pelagic waters. record suggests it habitat. is not a regular inhabitant of the

Scientific Name Status EIS Regional Distribution Habitat Potential Notes Survey Effort Revised Common Name Likelihood Habitat in Sufficient Likelihood (Ecosure Project 2011) Area NC ACT ACT EPBC EPBC

area. Species rarely comes to shore of mainland Australia.

Neophema pulchella NT NA Not Assessed Cooloola National Park Open grassy Yes Only a single Yes – outside the Low Turquoise parrot Queensland south to woodlands with record suggests it known species Northern Victoria. dead trees, near is not a regular range. permanent water inhabitant of the and forested hills, area. Outside of coastal heaths, known range. pastures with exotic grasses, roadsides and orchards.

Ninox rufa queenslandica V NA Not Assessed Eastern Australia from Cape Tall lowland Yes Only a single Yes – outside Low Rufous owl (Southern York Peninsula to rainforest, record suggests it known species Subspecies) Rockhampton, Queensland. monsoon forest, is not a regular range. gallery forest, inhabitant of the swamp woodlands. area. Slightly south of known range, likely to be extremely rare.

Phaethon rubricauda V NA Not Assessed Occurring in op en waters Open pelagic water No Rarely coming to Yes – unsuitable Low Red-tailed tropicbird from New South Wales to and outlying land, a single habitat. southern Western Australia. Islands. record suggests it is not a regular inhabitant of the area. Species rarely comes to shore of mainland Australia.

Podargus ocellatus V NA Not Assessed Two populations one, in Monsoon forest, Marginal Lack of suitable Yes – unsuitable Low Marbled frogmouth northern Cape York gallery forest, habitat within the habitat and no Peninsula, other in betw een woodlands. project area and no species records. Gladstone and Lismore. records occur within 50 km. 76

Scientific Name Status EIS Regional Distribution Habitat Potential Notes Survey Effort Revised Common Name Likelihood Habitat in Sufficient Likelihood (Ecosure Project 2011) Area NC ACT ACT EPBC EPBC

Psephotus pulcherrimus PE EX Not Assessed Formerly sub coastal Presumed extinct. Yes Presumed extinct. Yes – species is Very Low Paradise parrot southeast Queensland and considered extinct. northeast New South Wales.

Stictonetta naevosa NT NA Not Assessed Most of Victoria and New Large well No Lack of habitat and Yes – no suitable Low Freckled duck South Wales, occurs in vegetated swamps. paucity records habitat in project southern Queensland as far suggest it is not a area. north as Gladstone. regular inhabitant of the area.

Thalassarche cauta V V Not Assessed Predominantly occurs in open Associated with No Only a single Yes – unsuitable Low Shy albatross waters of Southern Australia, pelagic waters. record suggests it habitat. may venture as far north as is not a regular the southern end of southeast inhabitant of the Queensland. area. Species rarely comes to shore of mainland Australia.

Tyto tenebricosa tenebricosa NT NA Not Assessed East coast of Australia Tall rainforest and No All records of the Yes – unsuitable Low Sooty owl between Victoria and eucalypt forest. species are from habitat. Conondale Ranges Bulburin State Queensland. Forest or Kroombit tops and are not associated with the project area.

Dasyurus maculatus V E Not Assessed Frasier Island Queensland to Rainforest, wet and No No records of Yes – unsuitable Low maculatus southwest Victoria. dry sclerophyll spotted-tail quolls habitat. Spotted-tailed quoll forest, coastal occur near the (Southern Subspecies) heath. project area, spotted-tail quolls are associated with ranges to the east of Gladstone.

Petrogale penicillata V NA Not Assessed From 100 km northwest of Inhabits rock piles No Does not occur Yes – unsuitable Low Brush-tailed rock-wallaby Brisbane to up per Snowy and cliffs with within project area, habitat, River in Victoria. numerous crevices potentially and ledges in misidentified

Scientific Name Status EIS Regional Distribution Habitat Potential Notes Survey Effort Revised Common Name Likelihood Habitat in Sufficient Likelihood (Ecosure Project 2011) Area NC ACT ACT EPBC EPBC

rainforest through Herbert’s rock- to dry sclerophyll. wallaby, well outside of range of brush-tailed rock wallaby.

Potorous tridactylus V V Not Assessed South east Queensland to Rainforest, wet No All records of the Yes – unsuitable Low tridactylus Tasmania along narrow sclerophyll, coastal species occur from habitat. Long-nosed potoroo margin of e ast Australian wallum. Bulburin State coast. Forest, and are not in proximity to the project area.

Hemiaspis damelii E NA Not Assessed Rockhampton south to Floodplains on No Paucity of records No – further Low Grey snake northern New South Wales. cracking soils. indicates the seasonal survey to species is not be undertaken common within the during early 2013. local area or region. Outside of known range.

Phyllurus caudiannulatus V NA Not Assessed Restricted to rainforest at Restricted to No No suitable habitat Yes – no suitable Low Ringed thin-tailed gecko Bulburin State Forest. rainforest areas, and no records habitat. e.g. Bulburin State within the project forest. area. Only occurs in rainforest at Bulburin State Forest.

Strophurus taenicauda NT NA Not Assessed Endemic to the southern Dry sclerophyll No Only two records Yes – no suitable Very Low Golden-tailed gecko Brigalow Belt. forest and are known of the habitat. woodlands, species, both from particularly where over 70 km from cypress pine in the project area. present. Outside of known range

Crinia tinnula V V Not Assessed Known range extends north Acid swamps in No Essential habitat Yes – no suitable Low the Bundaberg. paperbark and for the species is habitat and outside Wallum froglet wallum habitats. mapped by EHP known range.

Scientific Name Status EIS Regional Distribution Habitat Potential Notes Survey Effort Revised Common Name Likelihood Habitat in Sufficient Likelihood (Ecosure Project 2011) Area NC ACT ACT EPBC EPBC

on the coastal plain 5 km north of lauch site 1.

* Species listings under EPBC Act and NC Act, LC = Least Concern, NT = Near Threatened, V = Vulnerable, E = Endangered, CE = Critically Endangered, PE = Presumed Extinct, EX = Extinct, NA = Not Applicable

5.3 Fauna Profiles

5.3.1 Brigalow Scaly-foot (Paradelma orientalis)

Existing Species Knowledge

Status: NC Act: vulnerable; EPBC Act: vulnerable

Sensitivity: Moderate, the species can tolerate some level of habitat degradation, but is unlikely to persist in heavily disturbed land or fragmented habitats

Distribution and habitat: Largely restricted to the Brigalow Belt bioregion, this species extends from approximately 200 km southwest of Charters Towers (Carnarvon Ranges) in the north, south to Bendidee National Park and Eena State Forest (35 km northwest of Goondiwindi) (Schulz and Eyre, 1997; Kutt et al., 2003; DEWHA, 2009). The species is at its most easterly extent at Boyne Island (near Gladstone) and can be found as far west as Morven (Eyre et al., 1997; Schulz and Eyre, 1997; Tremul, 2000).

The brigalow scaly-foot can be found in a number of remnant communities including sparse tussock grasslands on grey, cracking soils (Shea, 1987), Acacia falciformis woodland, Acacia cambagei woodland, eucalyptus woodland, sandstone rises in dry sclerophyll forests, Corymbia citriodora and Eucalyptus crebra dominated forest, and mixed open woodland with Triodia mitchelli (Schulz and Eyre, 1997; Kutt et al., 2003). Being fossorial, they are generally more prevalent in habitats with few weeds and that consist of undisturbed ground surfaces with ground cracks and/or fallen debris, and/or native tussock grasses. Most records occur in remnant habitats, but the species can also occur in young regrowth (two to three years old) (Kutt et al., 2003; M. Sanders pers. obs.) and in modified habitats, including those dominated by buffel grass (M. Sanders pers. obs.).

Plate 1. Brigalow scaly-foot (Photograph: Ecosmart Ecology)

Ecology: Invertebrates such as crickets and spiders comprise the primary diet of the brigalow scaly-foot, although plant material has been located in the scats of at least one individual (Tremul, 2000). Additionally, sap, particularly from Acacia spp., constitutes a significant proportion of this species’ diet in

one known population on Boyne Island (Tremul, 2000). Breeding occurs in spring/summer and the typical clutch size is two (Tremul, 2000).

Documented Threats: The brigalow scaly-foot is threatened by land-clearing and habitat fragmentation for agriculture and pastoral purposes. Uncleared habitat can also be degraded by stock grazing and inappropriate fire regimes. Both of these activities reduce ground layer complexity and therefore reduce potential shelter sites for this species.

Occurrence and Potential Habitats

Numerous brigalow scaly-foot records exist from Boyne Island, approximately 10 km south of Gladstone. The most recent of these is from 2005, with at least three from 2003, and one from 1992, and 1989. Based on data research, the closest mainland record is from Stanwell in 2003, approximately 100 km to the northwest of the project area. Previously recorded locations of brigalow scaly-foot within the local area are shown in Figure 6, which also shows possible habitat within the project area . The species has not been recorded from Curtis Island.

The brigalow scaly-foot inhabits dry sclerophyll forest, including those dominated by spotted gum (Corymbia citriodora) and ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra), particularly those with undisturbed native ground cover (i.e., abundant fallen debris, rocks logs and few weeds etc). Possible habitat within the EIS area include RE 11.3.4, RE 12.3.3, RE 12.11.6 and RE 12.11.14, and extensive areas of these habitats look suitable on Curtis Island.

Given the close proximity to previous records and the potential habitat that exists both on Curtis Island and the mainland, it is possible that brigalow scaly-foot populations could occur. However, despite many surveys on Curtis Island and around Gladstone (including surveys for other LNG facilities), the species has not been identified. This growing body of work suggests that the brigalow scaly-foot is rare in the local area or possibly even restricted to Boyne Island. Future works will attempt to target this species, and the failure to locate individuals will add further weight to the supposition that they are not present within the EIS area.

Should a population of this species be discovered on Curtis Island, or on the nearby mainland, it would be near the southeastern limit of the species range, and therefore possibly qualify as an important population (Criteria 3, as defined under the Australian Government significant impact guidelines for MNES; DEWHA 2006).

É ** No core/critical habitat identified

G G

N O T E S: Figure 6. Previous survey records 3D Environmental Regional Ecosystems modifiied from Ecosure (2011) Vegetation Assessment Legend of brigalow scaly-foot & Mapping Specialists Arrow LNG Plant Supplementary Report P. O. Box 959 Project Area Brigalow scaly-foot Kenmore, Qld 4069 to the EIS Terrestrial Ecology Study Phone: (07) 3411 9072; (07) 3878 4344 Paradelma orientalis - species records (source ALA) Possible Habitat Mobile: 0447 822 119; 0409 426 916 0 1 2 3 4 G Client Coffey Environments www.3denvironmental.com.au Unsuitable Habitat File Path Date Kilometres Scale 1:119,000 Drawn By DG Checked DS 16/11/2012 A4 C:\Users\Owner\Documents\Clients\3D Environmental\Curtis\3d_Curtis_A4L.mxd

Potential Impacts and Mitigation

Project Related impacts: Current evidence suggests that the brigalow scaly-foot is absent from Curtis Island and adjacent mainland near Gladstone, in which case no impacts are likely. However the species is cryptic and can go unobserved. Potential project-related threats to brigalow scaly-foot populations, should they occur, include habitat loss both through vegetation clearing, habitat degradation due to edge effects (e.g., weed infestation), trench capture and increased mortality (particularly during clearing).

Suitable habitat within the project areas that will be directly lost from the proposed actions are provided in Table 13. The largest potential loss of habitat is associated with activities is on Curtis Island. Similar expanses of habitat have been cleared to the north, associated with other LNG facilities.

Table 13. Project-related clearing* of brigalow scaly-foot habitats (‘base case’and ‘both case’ only as discussed in Section 5.5). RE Arrow Total Total Proportion of Proportion of clearing on Arrow clearing Arrow clearing in Arrow clearing Curtis clearing for all LNG Gladstone LGA relative to state Island (ha)*** projects (%)** distribution (%)** (ha) (ha)

11.3.4 0 0 486.9 0 0 12.3.3/12.3.3a 29.86 37.73 214.64 0.21 0.09 12.11.6 68.14 68.14 489.13 0.07 0.03 12.11.14 74.74 74.74 165.21 2.12 0.23 12.11.7 59.45 59.45 59.45 0.48 0.20 * Calculation from supplementary RE mapping. ** From Accad et al (2012) *** Excludes ‘alternative case’ as discussed in Section 5.5.

While clearing may represent potential loss of habitat, and therefore a reduction in the extent of an important population (criteria 1 and 2; DEWHA, 2009), actual loss of habitat is dependent on the existence of resident populations. Considerable survey work has been undertaken on Curtis Island for LNG facilities and, due to the lack of records, the growing body of evidence suggests that a resident population is unlikely and therefore no important population is present. Similar habitats are abundant throughout Curtis Island and if brigalow scaly-foot are present alternative areas should support sufficient numbers to maintain a viable population. Similarly, no mainland brigalow scaly-foot records exist within proximity to Gladstone and the extent of clearing for TWAF 8 and Red Rover Road site is minor in the context of surrounding habitats.

Edge effects, in particular weed infestation, has the potential to adversely modify habitats in proximity to clearing thereby increasing habitat loss (criteria 6 and 7; DEWHA, 2009). The incursion of edge effects and weeds into native habitat varies from location to location and between habitats. However on balance it seems unlikely that edge effects, and in particular weed infestation, will be extensive if appropriate mitigation measures are followed.

Trench capture can increase local mortality, and if unmanaged and coinciding with high activity periods, have localised impacts. Provided trenches do not remain open, these impacts are short in duration and local populations are likely to quickly recover. Furthermore, these impacts are relatively easy to manage.

There is some potential for increased mortality due to individuals entering operational areas where they may become entrapped or subject to vehicle strike. Generally, these impacts are minor and often affect dispersing individuals.

There are no known diseases affecting brigalow scaly-foot currently within Australia that could be introduced as a result of the proposed activities (criteria 8; DEWHA, 2009) and project-related activities will not impact the recovery of the species (criteria 9; DEWHA, 2009).

Based on the above considerations, the likelihood of impacts is significantly reduced if there are no resident populations, and the magnitude of impacts is minor in context of surrounding habitats.

Recommended Mitigation Measures: The above assessment notwithstanding, some actions may be considered for incorporation into Arrow’s pre-construction management plans to further reduce the likelihood or magnitude of impacts. These include:

 Clearly delineate clearing boundaries to avoid unnecessary vegetation loss.

o Develop requirements for ecological watching briefs/wildlife spotter-catchers as well as procedures for addressing ecological issues as they arise during construction, operation and rehabilitation works (C17.06).

o Do not leave trenches open overnight, where possible, when brigalow scaly-foot activity peaks. Where necessary, the length of exposed trench should not exceed the daily walking distance of the spotter/catcher (e.g., 10 km). Brigalow scaly-foot is most active during warmer months (October – March), a reduction of trench use during this period is likely to reduce capture rates.

o Develop measures to prevent fauna entrapment and implement prior to construction where practical (e.g., the use of pipe caps if piping stored at ground level, string pipes with gaps for wildlife access) (C17.35).

o Develop trench inspection procedures to remove trapped fauna, establish protection and refuge areas for wildlife trapped in the trench and methods to assist trapped fauna left in the trench (C17.36).

Residual Impacts

Impacts prior to mitigation are considered improbable (based on growing evidence that resident populations are unlikely) and are considered to be of low magnitude (in context to surrounding values). Nevertheless, implementing the above recommended strategies will further reduce impact risk and magnitude. As a result, the proposed actions will not significantly impact brigalow scaly-foot values and residual impact significance is considered low (8). While the loss of vegetation is irreversible, current knowledge suggests the species does not occur outside of Boyne Island and project related activities will not affect known habitat. Further survey effort is required to better understand the presence of the species within the project area.

Assessment of brigalow scaly-foot against the significant impact guidelines for MNES (DEWHA 2006) suggests that significant impact to the species is unlikely. This species has broad habitat preferences and is widespread. Populations will therefore have some resilience to habitat disturbance. Controlling impacts through clearing of trenches or other locally excavated areas will be beneficial and substantially reduce short-term and long-term impacts. Further survey effort during the wet season to increase the knowledge of this species within the study area would be beneficial to more accurately determine the likelihood and significance of impacts.

Based on current evidence the proposed activities will not impact brigalow scaly-foot populations or habitats and therefore the requirement for habitat offset is unlikely.

Evaluation under MNES referral Guidelines

Table 14. Evaluation of impact significance for brigalow scaly-foot under MNES Guidelines.

Criteria Evaluation ‘Important population’ Current evidence suggests that the brigalow scaly-foot does not occur on Curtis Island or on the mainland near Gladstone. Th e closest known population occurs to the south on Boyne Island. If the species is absent there cannot be an ‘important population’ (or known habitat). Criteria 1: lead to a l ong-term decrease in the No, based on the presupposition that there are size of an important population. no extant populations. Criteria 2: reduce the area of occupancy of a n No, based on the presupposition that there are important population no extant populations. Criteria 3: fragment an e xisting important No, based on the presupposition that there are population no extant populations. Criteria 4: adversely affect habitat critical to the No, based on the presupposition that there are survival of the species no extant populations. No critical habitat has been registered for this species. Criteria 5: disrupt the breeding cycle of an No, based on the presupposition that there are important population no extant populations. Criteria 6: modify, destroy, remove or isolate or No, based on the presupposition that there are decrease habitat leading to the decline of the no extant populations. species 85

Criteria Evaluation Criteria 7: result in t he establishment of an No, predators such as foxes and cats are invasive species already established. Criteria 8: introduce a disease No. Criteria 9: in terfere with the rec overy of the No. species

5.3.2 Black-necked Stork (Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus)

Existing Species Knowledge

Status: NC Act: near threatened; EPBC Act: not listed

Sensitivity: Moderate, the species can tolerate some anthropogenic activity, but is senstive to the loss of wetlands or actions which affect prey abundance. Listed under state legislation as near threatened..

Distribution and Habitat: The black-necked stork is widespread in northern and eastern Australia and occurs through much of Queensland, absent only from southwestern portions of the state. It may also be found outside Australia from Pakistan and India through southeast Asia to New Guinea (Marchant and Higgins, 1990).

Black-necked storks occur predominantly in terrestrial wetlands, but may also be recorded in estuaries, littoral habitats and grasslands. They occur in both fresh and saline wetlands but prefer open fresh waters such as shallow swamps, billabongs and pools on floodplains (Marchant and Higgins, 1990; Johnstone and Storr, 1998). They can often be observed around the edges of artificial waterbodies, including occasionally on smaller farm dams. Most activity is restricted to shallow waters less than 0.5 m in depth. Recent studies have suggested that not all wetlands within an individual’s home range are of equal value. The loss of important wetlands may therefore disproportionately impact resident populations (Dorfman et al., 2001).

Ecology: Black-necked storks are typically observed individually or in pairs throughout the range, although flocks of up to 15 birds have been recorded (Sundar et al., 2006). It is likely that pairs require large home ranges with abundant freshwater swamp areas. Nesting typically occurs in tall trees, both live and dead, in or near freshwater swamps (Marchant and Higgins, 1990). Occasionally nests may be located in small bushes on stumps and even large rock outcrops. Rarely the nest may be located away from water (Johnstone and Storr, 1998; Beruldsen, 2003).

Largely sedentary, pairs may remain in an area for many years, though some birds will move long distances (Marchant and Higgins, 1990).

The species feeds on a variety of aquatic and terrestrial prey items including insects, crustaceans, fish, amphibians and reptiles (Marchant and Higgins, 1990; Dorfman et al., 2001). Prey items are located through tactile techniques, but birds may also visually locate food (Sundar et al., 2006). They have been occasionally recorded feeding on carrion (Johnstone and Storr, 1998).

Threats: The species is threatened by collision with powerlines; the use of herbicides, insecticides and other chemicals near wetlands; the loss of suitable nesting trees; disturbance by livestock; ingestion of cane toads; and loss of wetlands due to agriculture and development (Garnett and Crowley, 2000; Dorfman et al., 2001).

Occurrence and Potential Habitats

While black-necked stork records are not common within the local area, there is sufficient evidence to suggest the species occurs. During recent surveys, for example, an individual was observed foraging on tidal mudflats to the immediate west of the Arrow LNG plant site. Previous records and possible black- necked stork habitat is shown in Figure 7. While black-necked storks are more often recorded on expansive freshwater wetlands, they are known to occur in saline habitats. Mudflats and mangrove edges, in which the species could forage, are common adjacent to proposed Arrow activities, particularly on Curtis Island. Similar habitats are abundant within the Port Curtis region, including large expanses between Curtis Island and the mainland north of Graham Creek.

The regularity with which black-necked storks use habitats within Port Curtis is unknown. Given the number of surveys for LNG facilities and other infrastructure in areas of suitable habitat, it would appear that the species is not frequent at any one site in particular around Port Curtis, and forages over a wide area.

Recommended Mitigation Measures

None considered necessary. Therefore, based on current knowledge of black-necked stork within the local area, offsets for the species are unlikely

Residual Impacts

The proposed activities will affect only a very minor portion of possible black-necked stork habitat as affected areas are predominantly rocky shoreline. No freshwater wetland habitat will be affected, restricting the possible loss of habitat to 50.4 ha of mudflat/saltpan vegetation across all project areas.

Habitat loss resulting from the proposed activities, particularly in context to surrounding habitats, will be almost negligible. Furthermore, the species is highly mobile and therefore development will not create barriers to movement or dispersal.

Black-necked storks are typically shy creatures, and may quickly flee when disturbed. While the risk of disturbance while feeding may be slightly increased due to an increase in human or boating activity associated with the development, it is improbable that any such disturbance will increase substantially.

Overall, project related impacts to black-necked stork are of extremely low magnitude and residual impact significance is low (4).

** No core/critical habitat identified É

N O T E S: Figure 7. Survey records of 3D Environmental Regional Ecosystems modifiied from Ecosure (2011) Vegetation Assessment Legend black-necked stork & Mapping Specialists Arrow LNG Plant Supplementary Report P. O. Box 959 Project Area Black-necked stork Kenmore, Qld 4069 to the EIS Terrestrial Ecology Study Phone: (07) 3411 9072; (07) 3878 4344 Black-necked Stork (Source Ecosmart Ecology) Possible Habitat Mobile: 0447 822 119; 0409 426 916 0 1 2 3 4 C! Client Coffey Environments www.3denvironmental.com.au Unsuitable Habitat File Path Date Kilometres Scale 1:79,973 Drawn By DG Checked DS 16/11/2012 A4 C:\Users\Owner\Documents\Clients\3D Environmental\Curtis\3d_Curtis_A4L.mxd

5.3.3 Grey Goshawk (Accipiter novahollandiae)

Existing Species Knowledge

Status: NC Act: near threatened; EPBC Act: not listed

Sensitivity: Moderate. Grey goshawks can be observed in modified landscapes, including areas affected by logging or partial clearing. Generally absent for areas of broadscale clearing or urban landscapes. Listed as near threatened under state legislation.

Distribution and Habitat: Grey goshawks occur in temperate, sub-tropical and tropical rainforest, tall open forests, woodlands, wooded gorges, dense timber along watercourses, usually in the 760+ mm rainfall zone (Marchant and Higgins, 1993). They appear to avoid open forest, preferring denser forests, particularly in hilly and mountainous terrain (Burton and Olsen, 2000; Beruldsen, 2003). Individuals can, however, be found in other habitats including farmland and heath; these are most likely young birds dispersing from natural territories (Olsen and Olsen, 1985; Marchant and Higgins, 1993).

Grey goshawks occur in all Australian states and the Northern Territory, though never far inland. They are absent from the dry western portions of Cape York Peninsula and the Gulf of Carpentaria (Marchant and Higgins, 1993).

Ecology: The grey goshawk is a solitary, secretive species that forages by ambushing prey from a concealed perch in the tree canopy or by low, fast flight (Debus, 1998). Prey is taken from trees or on the ground rather than in the air (Olsen and Olsen, 1985) and principally includes mammals such as rabbits, possums and bats. These are supplemented by birds, nestlings, snakes, lizards, frogs, insects and occasionally carrion (Marchant and Higgins, 1993).

Breeding occurs once per year, usually from July to December (Marchant and Higgins, 1993). The nest is placed either in an upright fork or on top of a clump of mistletoe, usually in the topmost branches of a tall tree (Beruldsen, 2003). Mature forests are important for this species as large habitat trees provide the best nesting sites. Regrowth forest less than 30 years old is seldom used (Marchant and Higgins, 1993).

Documented Threats: There has been a slight decrease in the population size of grey goshawk since European settlement, probably due to habitat loss and persecution (Olsen, 1998). However, the species is not nationally threatened and is still common in the tropics and subtropics (Debus, 1998). The species remains threatened by habitat loss, particularly in southeastern Australia (Debus, 1998).

Occurrence and Potential Habitats

A grey goshawk was positively identified by Ecosure (2011) on Curtis Island within 5 km of the Arrow LNG plant near Ship Hill (Figure 8). Two other recent records (ALA, 2006 and Ecotone Curtis Alignment, 2010) are located on the mainland, one approximately 2.5 km west of the mainland tunnel launch site. Suitable habitat within the disturbance areas include eucalypt forests (RE’s 11.3.4, 12.3.3,

12.3.6, 12.3.7, 12.11.6 and 12.11.14) and littoral notophyll vine forest (RE 12.2.2).. These and similar suitable habitats are abundant in the local area and region, with the exception of littoral forest which have a naturally restricted distribution. During the non-breeding season, pairs and individuals may roam throughout large home ranges, but contract to core areas when breeding (Burton and Olsen, 2000). The number of observations and extent of suitable habitats within the local area suggest that there may be a resident breeding pair. However, the location and extent of important habitat is unclear. Supplementary surveys, which were conducted in late August, would have coincided with breeding when pairs remain close to nest trees. Had a resident pair been nesting in the local area, it seems likely that this species would have been observed, possibly regularly. Based on these assumptions, observations of grey goshawk probably represent resident bird(s) roaming through large home ranges.

Future observations of grey goshawk are likely on Curtis Island and the nearby mainland. However no nests or other evidence of breeding has been located within the proposed Arrow LNG project area.

Table 15. Project related clearing* of grey goshawk habitats (‘base case’ and ‘both case’ only as per Section 5.5). RE Arrow Total Total Proportion of Proportion of clearing Arrow clearing Arrow clearing in Arrow clearing on Curtis clearing for all LNG Gladstone LGA relative to state Island (ha)** projects (%) distribution (%) (ha) (ha)

12.3.3/ 12.3.3a 29.86 37.73 214.64 0.21 0.09 12.2.2 0 0 0 0 0 12.3.6 2.93 2.93 2.95 0.09 0.03 12.3.7 0 0 2.3 0 0 12.11.6** 68.14 68.14 489.13 0.07 0.03 12.11.7 59.45 59.45 59.45 0.48 0.20 12.11.14 74.74 74.74 165.21 2.12 0.23 * Calculation based on results of SREIS. ** Excludes ‘alternative case’ scenario as described in Section 5.5.

Recommended Mitigation Measures

Anticipated impacts are expected to be minor and no specific mitigation measures are recommended. Based on current knowledge of grey goshawk within the local area offsets for the species are unlikely. Residual Impacts

Impacts associated with the proposed actions are limited and considered to be of low magnitude. Clearing, which will result in the loss of approximately 243 ha of potential habitat, in the context of surrounding available habitats, is minor. Furthermore, there is no evidence of breeding within or in close proximity to the proposed actions. Residual impacts are considered to be of low (8) significance.

** No core/critical habitat identified É jkjk

N O T E S: Figure 8. Recent (1990+) grey 3D Environmental Regional Ecosystems modifiied from Ecosure (2011) Legend Vegetation Assessment Common Name, Source Grey Goshawk goshawk records within the local area & Mapping Specialists Arrow LNG Plant Supplementary Report P. O. Box 959 Possible Habitat Kenmore, Qld 4069 Grey Goshawk, ALA to the EIS Terrestrial Ecology Study Phone: (07) 3411 9072; (07) 3878 4344 jk Mobile: 0447 822 119; 0409 426 916 0 1 2 3 4 Unsuitable Habitat Client Coffey Environments www.3denvironmental.com.au Grey Goshawk, Ecotone jk File Path Date Kilometres Project Area Scale 1:103,537 Drawn By DG Checked DS 16/11/2012 A4 C:\Users\Owner\Documents\Clients\3D Environmental\Curtis\3d_Curtis_A4L.mxd

5.3.4 Square-tailed Kite (Lophoictinia isura)

Existing Species Knowledge

Status: NC Act: near threatened; EPBC Act: not listed

Sensitivity: Moderate. Square-tailed kites can be observed in modified landscapes, including areas affected by logging or partial clearing. Generally absent for areas of broadscale clearing or urban landscapes. Listed as near threatened under state legislation.

Distribution and Habitat: Square-tailed kites are widely distributed throughout Australia in coastal and sub-coastal regions. While they may be recorded well inland, they are absent from drier deserts and treeless plains. Most records occur from eastern and northern Australia, although records from the southwest of Western Australia are not uncommon (Marchant and Higgins, 1993; Pizzey and Knight, 2003). Migratory throughout much of its range, the square-tailed kite is a spring-summer resident in the south and dry season resident in the north (Debus, 1998).

Plate 2. Square-tailed kite (Photograph: Ecosmart Ecology).

A variety of habitats may be used including heathlands, woodlands, forests, tropical and subtropical rainforests, timbered watercourses, hills and gorges (Pizzey and Knight, 2003). However, most records are from woodlands and forests, particularly those on fertile soils with abundant small birds (Marchant and Higgins, 1993).

Ecology: Square-tailed kites feed mostly on small birds, eggs or their nestlings. These are supplemented by foliage insects and occasionally small mammals and lizards. Birds hunt by soaring slowly above or through the canopy, which may be done in a random fashion or along relatively straight lines (Marchant and Higgins, 1993; Debus, 1998). Nests are usually located in large trees within woodland areas, particularly along watercourses. Isolated trees are seldom selected as suitable nest sites (Marchant and Higgins, 1993; Beruldsen, 2003).

Documented Threats: Extensive areas of suitable woodland and forest habitats have been cleared throughout the species’ range, particularly in the south. While this is still probably the major threat to the species, egg collecting, shooting and the species’ slow recruitment rate hinder recovery. Other threats

may include the loss of woodland bird prey species through processes such as grazing and too-frequent fires (Debus, 1998; Garnett and Crowley, 2000).

Occurrence and Potential Habitat

The square-tailed kite has been recorded a number of times from within the local area (Figure 9). Ecosure (2011) recorded the species approximately 2 km to the north of TWAF 8, and a second record from 2007 is located on the Calliope River-Targinie Road immediately adjacent TWAF 8. There are also records from Curtis Island, including recent (SES 2010) observations from near Laird Point.

Square-tailed kites have large home ranges, which typically include a variety of forest habitats in which they can hunt. Nesting typically occurs in large trees, particularly in association with water courses (Marchant and Higgins, 1993). These habitats are common within the local area, both on Curtis Island and the mainland. While recently recorded, documented observations of the species are not abundant and it remains unclear if observed individuals represent birds moving through large home ranges or transient/dispersing individuals. Regardless, no likely nests have been located during any surveys reviewed during the desktop study, and it is probable that square-tailed kites do not rely on vegetation within the project area.

Potential Impacts and Mitigation

Project Related Impacts: Based on available evidence, it seems unlikely that square-tailed kite frequents the project area with any regularity. No known nests or areas of regular activity have been documented. The probability that this species will be impacted is therefore low. Furthermore, similar forest habitats are abundant within the local area, both on Curtis Island and the mainland. While clearing may reduce the extent of suitable habitat, in the context of surrounding areas this loss will be not be significant.

Recommended Mitigation Measures: None considered necessary. No further survey work other than pre-clearance surveys are considered to be required. Offsets are unlikely to be necessary.

Residual Impacts

Due to the species broad home ranges and wide ranging geographic distribution, impacts associated with the proposed actions are considered to be of low magnitude. Residual impacts are considered to be of low (8) significance.

** No core/critical habitat identified É

N O T E S: Legend Figure 9. Recent (1990+) square-tailed 3D Environmental Regional Ecosystems modifiied from Ecosure (2011) Vegetation Assessment Common Name, Source Square-tailed kite kite records within the local area & Mapping Specialists Arrow LNG Plant Supplementary Report P. O. Box 959 Possible Habitat Kenmore, Qld 4069 ! Square-Tailed Kite, ALA to the EIS Terrestrial Ecology Study Phone: (07) 3411 9072; (07) 3878 4344 Mobile: 0447 822 119; 0409 426 916 0 1 2 3 4 ! Square-Tailed Kite, Sandpiper 2009 Unsuitable Habitat Client Coffey Environments www.3denvironmental.com.au Project Area File Path Date Kilometres ! Square-Tailed Kite, Ecosure 2011 Scale 1:114,114 Drawn By DG Checked DS 16/11/2012 A4 C:\Users\Owner\Documents\Clients\3D Environmental\Curtis\3d_Curtis_A4L.mxd

5.3.5 Glossy Black-cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami)

Existing Species Knowledge

Status: NC Act: vulnerable; EPBC Act: not listed.

Sensitivity: High. Birds can be observed near uban landscapes, and even occasionally in larger parks and gardens. However, they are susceptible to the loss of large hollow-bearing trees and foraging resources. The species has a low fecundity making it slow to recover from population declines. Listed as vulnerable under state legislation.

Distribution and Habitat: Glossy black-cockatoos have a patchy distribution along the east coast and ranges, south from near Paluma Range to the Gippsland region in Victoria. An isolated population is located on Kangaroo Island in South Australia. They are uncommon and declining, particularly in the southwestern parts of their range, and are now extinct in mainland South Australia (Garnett and Crowley, 2000). There has been concern for the status of glossy black-cockatoo in the Southern Downs due to the loss of feeding and nesting resources (EPA, 2003).

Birds inhabit woodlands and forests that have abundant Allocasuarina spp. trees and large hollows suitable for nesting. Many populations are restricted to remnant vegetation within hills and gullies surrounded by agricultural land (Higgins, 1999), however, some populations move through artificial landscapes such as semi-urban parks, gardens and golf courses to access favoured food resources (Higgins, 1999, M. Sanders pers. Obs.). Groups never stray far from water bodies, which are visited daily.

Ecology: Typically encountered in small family parties, glossy black-cockatoo is a dietary specialist, feeding exclusively on the seeds in allocasuarina and casuarina species. Favoured species include Allocasuarina. torulosa, A. littoralis, A. luehmannii, A. distyla, A. diminuta, A. gymnanthera and A. verticillata (Chapman, 2007). It is poorly documented, but glossy black-cockatoo also feed on A. inophloia in and around the Kumbarilla to Inglewood area (M. Sanders pers. Obs.).

Observations of the species feeding on other resources (e.g., callitris and banksia) are likely to represent food switching during periods of poor Allocasuarina cone production (Chapman, 2007). It is unclear if the use of A. inophloia by local populations reflect food switching, or if local populations rely on stands of A. inophloia. However, given the abundance of orts (feeding signs) in some locations, and their repeated observation over consecutive years, the latter seems most feasible.

Birds show a preference for productive trees (e.g., higher seed/cone weight ratio), notwithstanding the influence of other factors such as distance from water or breeding hollows (Clout, 1989; Pepper et al., 2000; Crowley and Garnett, 2001; Cameron and Cunningham, 2006; Chapman and Paton, 2006; Chapman, 2007). Stands of allocasuarina are therefore not of uniform value, and the loss of individual stands or trees may have disproportionate impacts.

The production of cones by allocasuarina trees closely tracks rainfall (Cameron 2006a), and hence the availability of resources for resident glossy black-cockatoos fluctuate between years. While resources may be sufficient to support existing birds, drought is likely to reduce breeding success (Cameron, 2009).

Pairs breed during winter, mainly from April to July, although breeding has been recorded as late as August or as early as March (Beruldsen, 2003). Nests are located in a large vertical hollows extending one or two meters deep. Hollows may be reused over many years (Beruldsen, 2003). Females incubate and care for the young alone, but are regularly attended and fed by the male. Only one egg is produced, which hatches in about 30 days. Once hatched the chick fledges in around 60 days, but remains with its parents and is fed for another three months (Garnett et al., 1999).

Documented Threats: Threats to glossy black-cockatoo populations include:

 Clearing of habitat remains a serious threat. Previous clearing has reduced the species’ range in the south and west of the Great Divide (Garnett and Crowley, 2000).  Fire can reduce or remove suitable feed trees from large areas for several years and, if followed by grazing, prevent regeneration of previous habitats.  Fragmentation of habitats may also result in an increase in predation of nestlings and eggs or alternatively result in higher competition for hollows (Downes et al., 1997). This threat may be particularly severe where species adapted to altered or open habitats are abundant. These ‘edge’ species may include common brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecular), little corella (Cacatua sanguinea) and galah (Eolophus roseicapilla). By out- competing cockatoos for nest hollows, these predators and/or competitors can significantly reduce recruitment (Garnett et al., 1999).  Prolonged and severe drought can significantly reduce Allocasuarina cone production, reducing feeding resources and therefore breeding success. Global climate change may therefore negatively impact the species on a broad scale, particularly on the western slopes of the Great Divide (Cameron, 2009).  The loss of suitable hollow-bearing trees through processes such as fire or logging (Cameron, 2006b).

Occurrence and Potential Habitats

Several glossy black-cockatoo records occur within the Gladstone region (Figure 10). The species has been recorded on Curtis Island as recently as 2008 approximately 1.5 km to the northwest of proposed Arrow operations (URS, 2009). The species has also been noted in other Curtis Island studies including Ecosure (2011), however no location information of these records was provided. Records on the mainland are less abundant, the closest located approximately 4.5 km to the west of the mainland tunnel launch site (no date of record provided). Two glossy black-cockatoo were also observed flying over the launch site 1 by EcoSmart Ecology during the August 2012 fieldwork during recent studies. The birds were heading in a southern direction and were not active within the site.

Based on these records, it is possible that a resident, perhaps partly nomadic, population of glossy black-cockatoo occurs within the local area.

Observations from the floristic survey indicate Allocasuarina species are rare or scattered within the project disturbance area although Allocasuarina leuhmannii is observed as a common shrub on Curtis Island in habitat to the east of the Arrow LNG plant.

Potential Impacts and Mitigation

Project Related Impacts: Based on available evidence the lack of feeding resources available for glossy black-cockatoos indicates that the species is unlikely to use the study area with any consistency. Although glossy black-cockatoos were seen during surveys they were seen to be flying over the study site and were not observed to use the area. The probability that this species will be impacted is therefore low. Furthermore, similar forest habitats are abundant within the local area, both on Curtis Island and the mainland. While clearing may reduce the extent of suitable habitat, in the context of surrounding areas this loss will be not be significant.

Recommended Mitigation Measures: None considered necessary and the requirement for offsets is unlikely.

Residual Impacts

Due to the apparent limited occurrence of foraging resources (allocasuarina spp.) in any of the habitats to be impacted within the project area, the proposed actions are considered to be of low magnitude and residual impacts are considered to be of moderate (12) significance.

** No core/critical habitat identified É !

! !

N O T E S: Legend Figure 10. Recent (1990+) records of 3D Environmental Regional Ecosystems modifiied from Ecosure (2011) Vegetation Assessment Common Name, Source Glossy black-cockatoo glossy black-cockatoo within the local area & Mapping Specialists Arrow LNG Plant Supplementary Report P. O. Box 959 Possible Habitat Kenmore, Qld 4069 ! Glossy Black-Cockatoo, Ecosmart Ecology 2011 to the EIS Terrestrial Ecology Study Phone: (07) 3411 9072; (07) 3878 4344 Mobile: 0447 822 119; 0409 426 916 0 1 2 3 4 ! Glossy Black-Cockatoo, Ecotone 2010 Unsuitable Habitat Client Coffey Environments www.3denvironmental.com.au Project Area File Path Date Kilometres ! Glossy Black-Cockatoo, Other Scale 1:114,114 Drawn By DG Checked DS 16/11/2012 A4 C:\Users\Owner\Documents\Clients\3D Environmental\Curtis\3d_Curtis_A4L.mxd

5.3.6 Squatter Pigeon (Geophaps scripta scripta)

Existing Species Knowledge

Status: NC Act: vulnerable; EPBC Act: vulnerable.

Sensitivity: Moderate. Often observed in modified landscapes including along tracks, roads and in open paddocks. The species has significantly declined from southern portion of range where widespread clearing has occured. Listed under both state and federal legisation as vulnerable.

Distribution and Habitat: Records of squatter pigeon occur along the inland slopes of the Great Dividing Range west to Longreach and Charleville. Historically, it was found as far south as the Dubbo region, New South Wales, and extended north to the base of Cape York Peninsula (Garnett and Crowley, 2000; Pizzey and Knight, 2003). The southern subspecies (Geophaps scripta scripta) inhabits the southern portion of this range, interbreeding with G. S. peninsulae around the Burdekin Divide (Ford, 1986). Local records of the species are shown in Figure 11.

The species has declined dramatically in the south, and no confirmed records have been recorded from New South Wales since the 1970s (Garnett and Crowley, 2000). While the subspecies may still be commonly seen around the Bowen Basin and north of Injune (M. Sanders pers. Obs.), it has significantly declined from the regions of Inglewood, Leyburn, Chinchilla and the Lockyer Valley (EPA, 2003).

Plate 3. Squatter pigeon (Photograph: Ecosmart Ecology).

Squatter pigeon occurs in open dry sclerophyll woodland with grassy understorey, nearly always near permanent water (Pizzey and Knight, 2003; Higgins and Davies, 1996). Birds may occasionally feed in sown grasslands and pastures.

Ecology: Squatter pigeon are largely terrestrial, foraging and breeding on the ground. Seeds make up the bulk of their diet and can include grass, legume, herb, tree and shrub seeds. Occasionally insects

may be taken (Higgins and Davies, 1996). Items are predominantly gleaned from the ground, but may be occasionally taken directly from low seed heads (M. Sanders pers. Obs.).

This feeding strategy is most effective in grass areas that have a mosaic of vegetation and open areas. As a result, the species is absent from thick rank grasslands (e.g., areas dominated by exotic grasses), which also restricts surface movement. However, individuals and small groups are often located along roads and tracks surrounded by thick grasslands.

Breeding is poorly known but does appear to be greatly influenced by rainfall. Nests are constructed on the ground and consist of a shallow scrape lined with dry grasses. Often nests are located beside or beneath a tuft of grass, log or low bush (Frith, 1982; Beruldsen, 2003).

Movements are poorly documented, but birds appear to be locally nomadic (Frith, 1982; Higgins and Davies, 1996).

Documented Threats: Large areas of historical habitat for the squatter pigeon have been lost due to clearing for agricultural purposes. Remaining habitats are often modified through deleterious processes such as weed invasion, particularly by exotic grass species that are not favourable (e.g., buffel grass), and overgrazing. Predation of nests by cats, foxes and dogs may also reduce reproductive success, reducing the species’ ability to recover (Frith, 1982; Garnett and Crowley, 2000).

Occurrence and Potential Habitat

Squatter pigeon has been regularly recorded within the local area (22 records), although all records are confined to the mainland. Few of these records occur south of Fishermans Landing. Three records, all from 2007, occur within 1 km of TWAF 8 and the spatial distribution of records suggests that squatter pigeon is extremely likely at TWAF 8.

Squatter pigeon inhabits open woodlands, particularly areas with open ground or low grass (most typically RE11.3.4, 12.3.3 on the mainland sections). While woodlands with tall dense grass are usually avoided, the species will frequent these areas by foraging along road and track edges, or even in grazed and disturbed agricultural land (M. Sanders pers. Comm.). Assigning particular habitats or vegetation communities to this species is therefore extremely difficult.

A significant portion of habitat at TWAF 8 includes tall, thick grasses. While these areas are unsuitable, there are patches of more open lower grass, and habitats may become more suitable during dry conditions when grass growth is not prolific. The occurrence of squatter pigeon cannot therefore be excluded based on habitat values, but on balance is likely to be infrequent.

It remains unclear if populations of squatter pigeon in the Gladstone area qualify as an ‘important population’ or whether critical habitat occurs as defined under the significant impact guidelines for MNES (DEWHA, 2006). On balance, it is probable that birds within the area breed and therefore may be a source for dispersal, however no local or regional populations of squatter pigeon have been identified as being especially important to the long-term survival or recovery of the species (DSEWPaC 2012). 100

"" "" " ** No core/critical habitat identified "" " " "

" É " "

" " " " " " " " " " " ""

" "

" " N O T E S: Figure 11. Recent (1990+) records of 3D Environmental Regional Ecosystems modifiied from Ecosure (2011) Legend Vegetation Assessment squatter pigeon within the local area & Mapping Specialists Common Name, Source Squatter Pigeon, Ecotone 2010 Squatter pigeon " Arrow LNG Plant Supplementary Report P. O. Box 959 Possible Habitat Kenmore, Qld 4069 " Squatter Pigeon, ALA Squatter Pigeon, Other to the EIS Terrestrial Ecology Study Phone: (07) 3411 9072; (07) 3878 4344 " Mobile: 0447 822 119; 0409 426 916 0 1 2 3 4 Unsuitable Habitat Client Coffey Environments www.3denvironmental.com.au " Squatter Pigeon, ESE File Path Date Kilometres Project Area Scale 1:127,000 Drawn By DG Checked DS 16/11/2012 A4 C:\Users\Owner\Documents\Clients\3D Environmental\Curtis\3d_Curtis_A4L.mxd

Potential Impacts and Mitigation

Project Related Impacts: Squatter pigeon is expected to occur at TWAF 8 (‘alternative case’ as per Section 5.5), based on nearby records and the presence of suitable habitat. Construction at TWAF 8 would result in the loss of approximately 31.7 ha of woodland habitat. Suitable habitat in the surrounding area is abundant, and the loss of this area is minor in context. Accordingly, it is unlikely that this clearing will: lead to the long-term decrease in the size of the population (criteria 1); reduce the area of occupancy (criteria 2); adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the species (criteria 4); modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species will decline (criteria 6; DEWHA 2006).

Squatter pigeon is a highly mobile species and the proposed clearing actions will not lead to the isolation or fragmentation of existing populations (criteria 3; DEWHA 2006). Habitat loss through the clearing of vegetation could be exacerbated if edge effects, particularly exotic weeds, affect remaining habitats (Criteria 7). These impacts however, are likely to be relatively localised, restricted to the immediate vicinity of disturbance.

Human inhabitation at TWAF 8 may increase the local abundance of predatory species such as feral cats and foxes (Criteria 7). These have the potential to increase mortality, and reduce reproductive success (by predating on eggs and nestlings). However, both these pest species are already likely in the local area, and proposed activities are not likely to significantly increase predator abundance. Accordingly, while impacts are likely, they are minor in significance.

Recommended Mitigation Measures: Projected impacts to squatter pigeon values are minor, but may be further reduced by the following mitigation measures, which will be considered for incorporation into Arrow’s pre-construction management plans:

 Stock-pile cleared vegetation in ‘wind-rows’ around the edge of retained vegetation. In addition to providing shelter, this will also provide some physical barrier reducing edge impact severity and the risk of weed spread. Develop weed management measures prior to initiation of construction activities in accordance with local and regional management guidelines and best practice advice prescribed in DERM’s pest control factsheet series (C17.09).

 Liaise with Biosecurity Queensland and Gladstone Regional Council on project biosecurity and pest management programs. Notify Gladstone Regional Council of any new declared or notifiable pest species. These programs should particularly focus on the boundaries of the project site with the Environmental Management Precinct (C17.10).

 Develop and implement washdown strategies and procedures to prevent the spread of weeds (C17.12).

102

Residual Impacts

Implementation of the above recommendations will further reduce potential impacts to squatter pigeon. Accordingly, while impacts are possible (i.e., due to clearing), they will be of low magnitude and residual impact significance will also be low (8). A total of 464 ha of potential habitat will be cleared on the mainland (excluding TWAF 8 which is an ‘alternative case’) associated with all LNG projects including 455 ha or RE11.3.4 and a smaller amount of RE11.3.3. In the context of the bioregional extent of RE11.3.4 (186 ,652 ha) in particular, this clearing represents an extremely small portion of useable habitat and based on current knowledge, cumulative impacts are considered to remain low (8).

Evaluation under MNES referral Guidelines

Based on current evidence the proposed activities will not impact squatter pigeon populations. While some clearing of potential habitat will occur, the clearing is minor in extent and will affect only sub-optimal habitats. It therefore seems unlikely that offsets for this species will be required. Further surveys for this species are unlikely to be necessary, and pre-clearance surveys will suffice.

Table 16. Assessment of squatter pigeon under MNES referral guidelines.

Criteria Evaluation ‘Important population’ The extent and nature of the squatter pigeon within the Gladstone region is difficult to define. The squatter pigeon is highly mobile and it is likely that individuals move and mix over a broad area. The genetic diversity of the ‘Gladstone regional’ population, and its contribution to the genetic diversity of the species, is unknown. There is insufficient evidence to c onfidently define the population as ‘important’ under the MNES criteria, however no local or regi onal populations of squatter pigeon have been identified as being especially important to the long-term survival or recovery of the species (DSEWPaC 2012). Criteria 1: lead to a l ong-term decrease in the No, the species appears absent from the island size of an important population. and clearing on the mainland will affect o nly a minor portion of sub-optimal habitat. Criteria 2: reduce the area of occupancy of a n No, the species appears absent from the island important population and clearing on the mainland will affect o nly a minor portion of sub-optimal habitat. The loss of this habitat is unlikely to re duce the s pecies area of occupancy. Criteria 3: fragment an e xisting important No, this species is highly mobile and clearing population activities will not affect their movement or dispersal. Criteria 4: adversely affect habitat critical to the No, clearing is minor in regional context, and will survival of the species affect sub-optimal habitats. No critical habitat has been registered for this species.

103

Criteria Evaluation Criteria 5: disrupt the breeding cycle of an No, breeding within clearing zones is unlikely. important population Indirect impacts on breeding potential area also unlikely with appropriate feral animal control measures. Criteria 6: modify, destroy, remove or isolate or No. Clearing will not lead to the decline of th e decrease habitat leading to the decline of the species. species Criteria 7: result in t he establishment of an No, predators such as foxes and cats are invasive species already established. Mitigation measures will be implemented to re duce the risk of development actions leading to an increase in predator abundance. Criteria 8: introduce a disease No. Criteria 9: in terfere with the rec overy of the No. species

5.3.7 Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua)

Existing Species Knowledge

Status: NC Act: vulnerable; EPBC Act: not listed.

Sensitivity: High. While mobile, this species requires large tracks of contiguous vegetation with abundant hollows for nesting and to support prey. Listed under state legislation as vulnerable.

Distribution and Habitat: Powerful owl is found from the southeastern corner of South Australia along the east coast to near Bundaberg, although there are scattered records to near Yeppoon and Rockhampton (Higgins et al., 1999). More commonly found on the eastern side of the Great Dividing Range, inhabiting large areas of old growth forest and areas of extensive tall forest (Garnett and Crowley, 2000).

Suitable habitat includes open sclerophyll forests, woodlands, tall wet sclerophyll forest, often with sheltered gullies and thick mesic vegetation in which they can roost. Favoured habitats include old- growth forest or habitat with abundant hollows supporting an abundant and diverse array of arboreal mammals, their main prey (Higgins et al., 1999). Powerful owl usually avoids large tracts of rainforest and is less abundant in fragmented landscapes, preferring large contiguous intact forested areas (Higgins et al., 1999). The location of suitable habitats in the project area is shown in Figure 12 .

104

Plate 4. Powerful owl (photograph reproduced with permission of Peter Stanton)

Ecology: Pairs of powerful owl occupy large, probably permanent, home ranges ranging in size from 300 ha to 1,500 ha, depending on habitat quality and density of prey (McNabb, 1996, Higgins, 1999; Garnett and Crowley, 2000). Seasonal shifts in home-range use may occur, or pairs may shift use in response to prey availability. During breeding, adults are rarely observed far from the nest tree (Higgins et al., 1999). Nesting occurs in large hollows, usually in living eucalypts, below the canopy and thus sheltered. Rarely, individuals have been recorded nesting in stags or emergent trees (Higgins et al., 1999; Hollands, 2008; Olsen, 2011). Nest trees are often located near a permanent creek, or on a sheltered slope (Olsen, 2011). Breeding typically occurs once per year during winter (April – June) (Pavey, 1994). Young are able to hunt after 12 weeks, but are usually still feed by parents for several months after leaving the nest (McNabb, 1996, Higgins et al., 1999).

Australia’s largest owl, powerful owl preys on medium-sized mammals, particularly arboreal species such as possums and gliders; these may represent more than 50% of their diet. Other prey items include birds, flying-foxes, rats and insects (Seebeck, 1976, Webster et al., 1999; Higgins et al., 1999, Kavanagh, 2002, Olsen, 2011). Roosting within the dense foliage of large trees, individuals avoid smaller mobbing birds throughout the day. During breeding season adults use large hollow bearing trees to nest, with adult birds reducing their movements and roosting habitats to the vicinity of the nest tree (Webster et al., 1999; Beruldsen, 2003).

Adult pairs are resident, and hence movements outside their home range are uncommon. Dispersal is not well known, although at least one bird has been recorded crossing several kilometres of open or lightly wooded land (Debus and Chafer, 1994).

Documented Threats: Sufficient cover, expanses of woodlands and large hollows are required for shelter, nesting and prey species. Clearing of woodlands for urban growth, agriculture and forestry purposes reduces suitable habitat for powerful owls and their prey. Inappropriate fire regimes may further impact powerful owl if this affects prey density.

105

** No core/critical habitat identified

# É # # # # ## # # #

Legend Common Name, Source # Powerful Owl, Ecotone 2010 # Powerful Owl, Other # Powerful Owl, Sandpiper 2009 Powerful owl Possible Habitat Unsuitable Habitat Project Area

N O T E S: Figure 12. Recent (1990+) records of 3D Environmental Regional Ecosystems modifiied from Ecosure (2011) Vegetation Assessment powerful owl within the local area & Mapping Specialists Arrow LNG Plant Supplementary Report P. O. Box 959 Kenmore, Qld 4069 to the EIS Terrestrial Ecology Study Phone: (07) 3411 9072; (07) 3878 4344 Mobile: 0447 822 119; 0409 426 916 0 1 2 3 4 Client Coffey Environments www.3denvironmental.com.au File Path Date Kilometres Scale 1:127,000 Drawn By DG Checked DS 16/11/2012 A4 C:\Users\Owner\Documents\Clients\3D Environmental\Curtis\3d_Curtis_A4L.mxd

Occurrence and Potential Habitat

Sandpiper Ecological Surveys (SES) and Wildsearch Environmental Services (WES) (2010) recorded powerful owl on five mainland locations within proximity to Gladstone, concluding that at least three pairs were present. Most records occurred in large contiguous patches of vegetation separate from the project area. Few birds were located in fragmented forest habitats to the northwest of Gladstone (SES and WES, 2010). Accordingly, while remnant vegetation within the TWAF 8 and Red Rover Road sites are suitable, they may not be attractive due to surrounding land modification. The occurrence or regular use of these areas by powerful owl seems unlikely. Other mainland sites (e.g., TWAF 7, launch site 1 and the mainland tunnel launch site) do not provide suitable habitat.

On Curtis islands, SES and WES (2010) identified powerful owl at a number of locations, including three roost trees in proximity to the proposed QCLNG plant. Based on these, and nearby records, SES and WES concluded that the home range of at least one, and possible two resident pairs overlapped their study site. The occurrence or density of powerful owl over the broader Curtis Island area is not known.

The tall eucalypt forests (e.g., RE 11.3.4, RE 12.3.3., RE 12.11.6 and RE 12.11.14) within the proposed Arrow LNG plant is highly suitable for powerful owl; hollows are common and their favoured prey, arboreal mammals, are likely to be abundant. Furthermore, powerful owl will often roost in patches of thick vegetation such as RE 12.2.2 (e.g., SES and WES 2010). Habitat values, and records within 1.6 km (SES and WES, 2010), suggest that the species is highly likely to occur. However, it is not known if roost or nest trees occur in the area.

Potential Impacts and Mitigation

Project Related Impacts: It is highly probable that habitat in the proposed Curtis Island facility contributes to the home range of a resident powerful owl pair. While a number of project-related impacts have potential to affect powerful owl, the loss of habitat will be the most severe. The ability of resident pairs to alter home ranges and forage in alternative habitats is dependent on a number of factors including: the distribution and abundance of competing pairs; the distribution and abundance of prey; and the cumulative loss of alternative habitat within their existing home range (i.e., for the construction of other LNG facilities). If nearby habitats are suitable, it is likely they are inhabited by competing pairs, and accordingly, without the option to alter existing territories, the cumulative loss of habitat on Curtis Island is likely to adversely affect at least one pair of powerful owl as well as impact prey as some species likely to be light adverse (e.g., yellow-bellied glider). Other species, such as sugar gliders, may not be affected by light. Light therefore, has the potential to further reduce habitat by reducing the suitability of habitat immediately adjacent operations. Mitigation to minimise light pollution (as described below) into adjacent habitats are likely to restrict impacts to vegetation immediately adjacent to infrastructure, and as such, impacts will be very minor in extent.

The impact of noise on vertebrates is very poorly understood. Noise has the potential to affect the suitability of surrounding habitats, either by directly reducing owls preference to forage in noisy areas (i.e., less likely to hear prey), or by reducing prey abundance. The extent and magnitude of noise 107

impacts cannot be assessed without detailed knowledge of noise levels, but on balance, are likely to be most severe within proximity to operational infrastructure (i.e., within 100 m).

Recommended Mitigation Measures: Habitat loss due to clearing will be unavoidable, although it will be important to clearly define clearing zones to retain as much habitat as possible. Further loss of habitat through degradation from light and noise pollution may be reduced by the following mitigation measures, which will be considered for incorporation into Arrow’s pre-construction management plans:

 Consider measures to minimise light emitted from the LNG plant during the detailed design of the LNG plant. Many of these measures relate specifically to mitigating impact to turtle rookeries although are of general benefit to terrestrial ecological values and include: o Assess the necessity and choice of lighting for every light in the plant area: o Use low-pressure sodium (LPS) lights as a first-choice light source and high-pressure sodium (HPS) lights where LPS is not practical. o Replace short-wavelength light with long-wavelength light and exclude short- wavelength light with the use of filters. o Avoid using halogen, metal halide or fluorescent lights (white lights) where possible, and only use white lights in contained areas where colour rendition is required. o Minimise the number and wattage of lights, and recess lighting into structures where possible. o Use timers and motion-activated light switches. o Use reflective materials to delineate equipment or pathways and use embedded lighting for roads. o Position doors and windows on the sides of buildings facing away from marine turtle nesting beaches and install and use window coverings to reduce light emissions. o Use elevated horizons or vegetation to screen rookery beaches from light sources.

 Regularly maintain all machinery and equipment and check for excessive noise generation (C22.04).

 Develop requirements for ecological watching briefs/wildlife spotter-catchers as well as procedures for addressing ecological issues as they arise during construction, operation and rehabilitation works (C17.06).

Residual Impacts

The extent of impacts on powerful owl is difficult to determine accurately without knowledge of home range and habitat use. However, the frequency of records in the southwest of Curtis Island, compared to the cumulative loss of habitat for LNG facilities, suggest that at least one pair of powerful owl may be significantly impacted and the magnitude of impacts is considered moderate and residual impact is moderate (17).

108

While previous works are likely to have been adequate, targeted techniques (i.e., call playback) during the early 2013 baseline survey will improve survey rigour

5.3.8 Grey-headed Flying-Fox (Pteropus poliocephalus)

Existing Species Knowledge

Status: NC Act: least concern; EPBC: vulnerable; “Back on Track” (BOT – Queensland native species prioritisation framework) critical

Sensitivity: Moderate. While highly tolerant of disturbance (often seen in urban settings), this species has declined significantly in the northern portion of its range, suggesting that in this location it should be considered to have a moderate sensitivity to disturbance. Listed under state legislation as least concern, federal legislation as vulnerable and BOT as critical.

Distribution and Habitat: Grey-headed flying-fox was once abundant between Rockhampton in Queensland and Mallacoota in Victoria (Tidemann 1998), but its range has contracted considerably. They are no longer present in the Rockhampton and Hervey Bay areas and have declined in numbers around Brisbane (Duncan et al. 1999).

Two habitat characteristics are important for grey-headed flying-fox, foraging resources and roosting sites. As the species is a canopy-feeding frugivore and nectarivore, they utilise vegetation including rainforests, open eucalypt forests, woodlands, melaleuca swamps and banksia woodlands (Eby ,1998, Duncan et al ,1999). Individuals will readily forage in fruit crops and introduced tree species within urban environments.

Roosts are commonly within dense vegetation close to water, primarily rainforest patches, stands of melaleuca, mangroves or riparian vegetation (Nelson, 1965), but colonies may use exotic vegetation in urban areas (Birt et al., 1998).

Ecology: The ecology of grey-headed flying-fox is heavily influenced by the changing nature of their foraging resources. Individuals may move large distances (up to 50 km) during a night in search of resources (Nelson ,1965), but may also move or migrate considerable distances (e.g., >1,000 km) to aggregate around an abundant foraging resource (Eby, 1991; Churchill, 1998; Tidemann and Nelson, 2004; Roberts et al., 2012). When not breeding, grey-headed flying-fox may move frequently between camps and during periods of localised flowering, temporary camps may appear, although individuals usually show some fidelity to maternity roosts (Eby, 1998, Duncan et al., 1999). Breeding usually occurs at three years of age during the spring months when food resources are at their most plentiful (Martin, 2000).

Documented Threats: Grey-headed flying-fox is subject to several threatening processes, the most severe being loss of habitat and fragmentation. It has been suggested that this has resulted in a 50% decline in the population by the 1930s (Duncan et al. 1999). The loss of habitat, particularly important habitat such as reliable winter resources along the east coast, has continued to lead to population

109

declines. The species will also forage within commercial fruit farms, sometimes significantly reducing their yield. This has resulted in direct culling or the destruction of camps by harassment. Other threatening processes include accumulation of lethal levels of lead in urban areas (Hariono et al., 1993), electrocution on overhead powerlines, which kills disproportionately high numbers of lactating females (Duncan et al., 1999), and conversion of old-growth forests and woodlands to young, even-aged stands due to too-frequent burning (NPWS, 2002). Competition with the ecologically similar black flying-fox (Pteropus alecto) may also affect populations.

Plate 5. Grey-headed flying-fox

Occurrence and Potential Habitat

Records of grey-headed flying-foxes within available databases for the local area are sparse, with only one post 1990 record within 50 km of Gladstone. However, local bat carers are aware of transient populations along Grahams Creek on Curtis Island and a large camp along Leixlip Creek at the entrance to the Calliope Golf Club, that at times contains 70,000-80,000 bats (approximately 75 per cent grey- headed flying-fox; Henry Grezgorski pers. comm.).Recently, Ecosure noted grey-headed flying foxes on four occasions, once on Curtis Island and three times around Targinnie (Figure 13). During EcoSmart surveys of both Curtis Island and mainland sites, flying-foxes were observed in and around flowering eucalypts or flying over sites. Conditions for flying-fox surveys were excellent, and while a large numbers were observed, all positively identified individuals were black-flying foxes (Pteropus alecto).

110

** No core/critical habitat identified

É " "

N O T E S: Figure 13. Possible grey-headed flying fox 3D Environmental Regional Ecosystems modifiied from Ecosure (2011) Legend Vegetation Assessment habitat within the local area & Mapping Specialists Grey-headed flying fox records, Ecosure 2011 Grey-headed Flying-fox " Arrow LNG Plant Supplementary Report P. O. Box 959 Kenmore, Qld 4069 Possible Habitat to the EIS Terrestrial Ecology Study Phone: (07) 3411 9072; (07) 3878 4344 Mobile: 0447 822 119; 0409 426 916 0 1 2 3 4 Unsuitable Habitat Client Coffey Environments www.3denvironmental.com.au File Path Date Kilometres Project Area Scale 1:127,000 Drawn By DG Checked DS 16/11/2012 A4 C:\Users\Owner\Documents\Clients\3D Environmental\Curtis\3d_Curtis_A4L.mxd

No flying-fox camps occur within the EIS area, and therefore the value of vegetation within the proposed activity zone is linked to the abundance of foraging resources. Vegetation with fruiting bodies are likely to be limited to small pockets of vine thicket (RE 12.2.2, 12.11.4); these are unlikely to attract large numbers of individuals. However extensive blossom and nectar resources are present in communities with tall flowering canopy species such as Eucalyptus tereticornis and Melaleuca quinquenervia (e.g., RE 11.3.4, 12.3.3, 12.3.6, 12.3.7 and 12.11.14). Eucalyptus tereticornis is a winter flowering tree and habitats on Curtis Island dominated by this tree were frequented by abundant flying-foxes (only black flying-fox observed); see preceding paragraph) during August/September.

Similar habitat occurs throughout much of Curtis Island and in large expanses of forest that occur on the mainland. While there has been an accumulative loss of foraging habitat associated with LNG operations on Curtis Island, substantial foraging habitat remains within the local area.

Potential Impacts and Mitigation

Potential Impacts and Mitigation: No flying-fox camps are known to occur within the project area footprint. Being highly mobile and not dependant on ground strata conditions, impacts on grey-headed flying-fox will therefore be restricted to the loss of foraging resources. While there may be the loss of some individual fruiting bodies, the loss of blossom and nectar will be more substantial. In total, it is estimated that approximately 176 ha of suitable foraging habitat will be cleared. As clearing is to facilitate the construction of infrastructure, the loss of this vegetation is likely to be prolonged, and possibly irreversible.

Recommended Mitigation Measures: Projected impacts may be reduced by:

 Clearly delineate clearing boundaries to avoid unnecessary vegetation loss, and

 Determine areas (if any) requiring to be offset in consultation with DEHP and DSEWPaC and other government stakeholders prior to commencement of construction. This is likely to include the two areas of endangered (Vegetation Management Act) remnant vegetation (RE 12.3.3; Assets 27 and 31) within the LNG plant site, and the Cupaniopsis sp.indet population (C17.02).

Residual Impacts

The Arrow LNG Plant will result in the clearing of 127 ha (base case only) out of a broader area of 906 ha of suitable foraging habitat that will be cleared cumulatively across all LNG facilities. A combined total of 20,218 ha of suitable habitat in the form of REs 12.3.3, 12.3.7, 12.11.14, 12.3.6 is calculated to occur within Burnett – Curtis Hills and Ranges sub-region (based on Accad et al, 2012) . Total clearing for all facilities represents 4.4% of the bioregional occurrence of these REs, which does not represent all of the suitable habitat present in the sub-region. Due to the comparative abundance of similar resources within the local area, the loss of foraging trees associated with the cumulative impact of all developments is not expected to significantly affect the local population and the magnitude of potential impact is considered

112

low. Extensive mitigation measures are not therefore considered necessary. The residual impact of the project on the species is considered low (8).

Evaluation under MNES referral Guidelines

Based on current evidence the proposed activities will not have significant impacts grey-headed flying-fox populations, although the actions will contribute to local area cumulative impacts. Targeted survey work for this species is not required, although spotlighting during the early 2013 baseline surveys will improve survey rigour.

Table 17. Assessment of grey headed flying fox under MNES referral guidelines.

Criteria Evaluation ‘Important population’ Current data is in sufficient to determine if the local population includes a po rtion of breeding females. However, according to information supplied by l ocal wildlife carers the population fluctuates suggesting that ind ividuals move in and out of the region. The genetic details of a nimals within the local area is unknown, and therefore their contribution to the genetic structuring in the species is unknown. The species historically extended to Rockhampton, approximately 100 k m north of Gladstone. However it has declined dramatically, and Gladstone is now approximating the species northern extent. Given the location of the local population with respect to the species current distribution and the decline of the species within the northern extent of its range, the precautionary principle should be app lied and the local population treated as ‘important’. Criteria 1: lead to a l ong-term decrease in the LNG facilities within the Gladstone area will size of an important population. have resulted in the accumulative loss of winter foraging resources. While this may reduce the number of individuals able to frequent the region, the species is highly mobile and habitats with similar resources remain abundant. Criteria 2: reduce the area of occupancy of a n No, roosts will not be affected and similar important population habitats remain abundant within the local area. Criteria 3: fragment an e xisting important No, this species is highly mobile and clearing population activities will not affect their movement or dispersal. Criteria 4: adversely affect habitat critical to the No, clearing is minor in regional context, and will survival of the species affect sub-optimal habitats. No critical habitat has been registered for this species. Criteria 5: disrupt the breeding cycle of an No, roost locations will not be affected. important population Criteria 6: modify, destroy, remove or isolate or The proposed actions will result in the loss of decrease habitat leading to the decline of the 176 ha of foraging habitat, which will contribute

113

Criteria Evaluation species to the cumulative loss of resources from other LNG operations. In total, 906 ha of suitable foraging habitat will be cleared across all LNG projects. While t he loss of habitat may reduce the number of individuals frequenting the ar ea, the population appears to fluctuate. Individuals can therefore move into o ther regions and the species is highly mobile. While the overall impact on population numbers is unquantifiable, it is likely to be very minor in the context of available resources within the region, and the ability of th e species to access resources outside the region. Criteria 7: result in t he establishment of an No. invasive species Criteria 8: introduce a disease No. Criteria 9: in terfere with the rec overy of the No. species

5.3.9 Little Pied Bat (Chalinolobus picatus)

Status: NC Act: near threatened; EPBC Act: not listed

Existing Species Knowledge

Sensitivity: Moderate. While most regularly located in large tracts of vegetation, the species also occurs in narrow connected remnants such as along water ways. Listed as near threatened under state legislation.

Distribution and Habitat: Little pied bat is most common west of the Great Dividing Range in semi-arid regions from the mallee region of South Australia/Victoria to the tropic of Capricorn. However, individuals have also been located in scattered areas closer to the coast (Churchill, 2008). Little pied bat is typically found in dry habitats including open forests, woodland, mulga woodlands, chenopod scrublands, callitris forest and mallee (Churchill, 2008). However, recent surveys have also located the species in notophyll vine forest gullies (Eyre et al., 1997). In drier parts of its range, populations probably depend heavily on riparian areas (EPA, 2003).

Ecology: Historically, the species was thought to roost exclusively in caves, tunnels and similar subterranean structures (Hall and Richards, 1979). However recent observations and studies have found that hollow-bearing trees are more regularly used (Van Dyck and Strahan, 2008). A wide variety of roost trees may be used, including Casuarina pauper, mulga, bloodwoods and large eucalypts. A range of hollow sizes are selected, but favoured locations open into large cavities midway up the trunk (Churchill, 2008). Occasionally the species has been located roosting in human-made structures such as woolsheds and abandoned buildings (Van Dyck and Strahan, 2008).

114

Unlike many other microchiropteran bats, little pied bat do not seem to roost in large numbers, although groups up to 50 have been located. Most roosts include ten or fewer individuals (Churchill, 2008; Van Dyck and Strahan, 2008). Little pied bat in flight is fast and highly manoeuvrable, often changing direction. Insects, predominantly moths, are taken from close to vegetation or gleaned from substrates. Limited tracking studies suggest that these bats are capable of traversing large distances (e.g., 17 km one way) from favoured roosts to foraging areas (Churchill, 2008; Van Dyck and Strahan, 2008). Females have been observed pregnant in mid-September with young born in late spring (November) (Menkhorst and Knight, 2004; Van Dyck and Strahan, 2008).

Documented Threats: Threats to the little pied bat include habitat clearance, fragmentation and loss of potentially important roosting locations such as tunnels, caves and mine shafts.

Occurrence and Potential Habitat

Little pied bat has been recorded sparingly within the Gladstone area, despite a large volume of ecological work for LNG and other infrastructure projects. The species has not been recorded on Curtis Island where it is not expected to occur. The species has been recorded from two locations (1997) in close proximity to one another between the proposed mainland tunnel launch site and Fishermans Landing (Figure 14).

Habitat at the mainland tunnel launch site (the closest project infrastructure to existing records) consists of open mudflats and intertidal communities, habitats which are largely unsuitable for this species. Adjacent vegetation communities above the saline influence are dominated by tall hollow-bearing trees and provide more suitable habitat, however recent studies in the area failed to locate the species (GHD 2012). Within the EIS area, tall eucalypt forests (e.g., RE 11.3.4, RE 12.3.3, RE 12.11.6 and RE 12.11.14) at TWAF 8 and Red Rover Road are most similar to suitable habitat.

Further survey is recommended in association with wet season field survey to provide further information on the potential presence of the species in the project area. This would include anabat analysis and possibly harp trapping, and would best be targeted at the mainland tunnel launch site, TWAF 8 and possibly the Red Rover Road site.

Potential Impacts and Mitigation

Project Related Impacts: Impacts on little pied bats will be largely restricted to the loss of potential habitat at TWAF 8 and Red Rover Road. These areas however, may not be inhabited by a resident population, negating any impact to the species The effect of light on little pied bats is unknown. Some microchiropteran species are light adverse, while others are attracted to increased prey associated with artificial lights. Available habitats are common within the region and the loss of these minor areas, or impacts associated with lighting, are unlikely to affect the abundance or extent of little pied bats.

115

Recommended Mitigation Measures: Light spill into adjacent remnant habitats may be reduced by the following mitigation measures, which will be considered for incorporation into Arrow’s pre- construction management plans:

 Regularly maintain all machinery and equipment and check for excessive noise generation (C22.04).

Residual Impacts

Residual Impacts: While clearing of suitable habitat for infrastructure is irreversible, the magnitude of impacts is considered to be extremely low due to their apparent scarcity in the local area and the minor extent of habitat that will be affected. Impact magnitude, may be further reduced if light pollution is managed. The overall residual impact significance is considered Low (4).

No essential habitat for little pied bat occurs within proposed disturbance zones. Furthermore, current knowledge suggests the species is unlikely to frequent the area and based on these factors, habitat offsets are unlikely to be necessary.

116

** No core/critical habitat identified É

N O T E S: Legend Figure 14. Possible little pied bat 3D Environmental Regional Ecosystems modifiied from Ecosure (2011) habitat within the local area Vegetation Assessment Little Pied Bat & Mapping Specialists Arrow LNG Plant Supplementary Report P. O. Box 959 Kenmore, Qld 4069 Possible Habitat to the EIS Terrestrial Ecology Study Phone: (07) 3411 9072; (07) 3878 4344 Mobile: 0447 822 119; 0409 426 916 0 1 2 3 4 Unsuitable Habitat Client Coffey Environments www.3denvironmental.com.au File Path Date Kilometres Project Area Scale 1:127,000 Drawn By DG Checked DS 16/11/2012 A4 C:\Users\Owner\Documents\Clients\3D Environmental\Curtis\3d_Curtis_A4L.mxd

5.3.10 Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus)

Existing Species Knowledge

Status: NC Act: vulnerable (SEQ bioregion); EPBC Act: vulnerable.

Sensitivity: High. While this species can occur in landscapes subject to some modification, anecdotal evidence and evidence from prior surveys suggest it has either declined in the local area or was never common and is therefore considered to have a high sensitivity. Listed as vulnerable under state legislation and vulnerable under federal legislation..

Distribution and Habitat: The koala is a medium sized, tree-dwelling, endemic marsupial. A stocky, medium sized (7-14 kg, males larger than females), arboreal mammal, with grey/brown fur, the koala feeds almost exclusively on eucalyptus foliage (Menkhorst and Knight, 2001; Dyck and Stratham, 2008). Individuals in the north of Australia are smaller than in the south, and generally have shorter fur and are greyer in colour (Menkhorst and Knight, 2001). Declines in populations have occurred over the past 200 years with human settlement disrupting populations through fragmentation and habitat clearing (Dyck and Stratham, 2008). Although EPBC-listed as a vulnerable species, the koala is considered to be common in particular areas.

Plate 6. Koala (Photograph: EcoSmart Ecology).

Endemic to eastern Australia, the koala is a solitary species that is widespread across coastal and inland areas from Cooktown in Queensland to the Mount Lofty Ranges in South Australia (Menkhorst and Knight, 2001). Restricted to altitudes below 800 m ASL (Munks et al., 1996), koalas occur in a diversity of habitats including temperate, sub-tropical and tropical forest, woodland and semi-arid communities, and sclerophyll forest, on foothills, plains and in coastal areas (Martin and Handasyde, 1999, Menkhorst and Knight, 2001; Dyck and Stratham, 2008). Koalas on the western side of the Great Dividing Range, at the western edges of their range, are often associated with water courses though are not restricted to them (Melzer et al., 2000; Sullivan et al., 2003). The koala has been located in nine biogeographic regions of Queensland, including southeast Queensland where the Arrow Energy LNG plant is to be built (DSEWPaC, 2012). Koalas have been translocated into a number of areas that are outside their natural range such as Magnetic Island, Kangaroo Island (in South Australia) and Phillip Island (Victoria).

118

Ecology: Koala is well known to have a preference for eucalyptus trees as a food source. The species of eucalyptus eaten varies depending on the species present in different regions of Australia. In southeast Queensland koala has a preference for species such as red gums (Eucalyptus camaldulensis, E. Tereticornis), tallowwood (E. Microcorys) and grey gums (E. Punctata and E. Propinqua) (Dyck and Stratham, 2008). Koalas have also been known to feed on Corymbia spp., Angophora spp., Lophostemon spp, Leptospermum spp. And Melaleuca spp. (Martin and Handasyde, 1999; Moore and Foley, 2000). Although an arboreal species, preferences for individual trees and the distances between feed trees forces individuals to the ground, where they are most vulnerable to predation and human induced mortalities (Hindell et al., 1985; Martin, 1985).

Koalas are not strongly territorial and home ranges will overlap. Home ranges vary in size from 1-2 ha in optimum habitat up to 135 ha in semi arid regions (Ellis et al., 2002; Dyck and Stratham, 2008). Movements are often as short as the distance between feed trees; however dispersing individuals will move over larger distances. Established individuals have been known to make exploratory movements over larger distances before returning to home ranges (Dique, 2003).

The breeding season occurs between October and May with females producing only one offspring per year (Dyck and Stratham, 2008). Juveniles become independent from one year of age with males living for over 12 years and females living for over 15 years (Martin and Handasyde, 1999). Breeding occurs from two years of age, and is often determined by the establishment of a male hierarchy as males become vocal and fiercely fight for females (Dyck and Stratham, 2008).

Documented Threats: Threats in southeast Queensland have been well studied. Significant threats to koalas include loss and fragmentation of habitat, vehicle strike, and predation by pet dogs (Canis lupus familiaris), whilst wildfire, disease, drought and extreme heat can also be damaging to individual and population health.

Habitat Loss, Fragmentation and/or Degradation

Fragmentation of habitat is of particular concern to koala as movement between habitats is when koala is most at risk of predation and car strike. Increasing urban growth has severely fragmented habitats in southeast Queensland (greater Brisbane) where populations are estimated to have declined by 64% (Dique et al., 2004). The patchiness of habitats limits movement between areas, limiting recolonisation, reducing genetic diversity through limited gene flow, and increasing localised extinction probability as areas become too small to support a viable population.

Human Induced Mortality – Cars and Pet Dogs

Koalas are most at risk of mortality whilst on the ground, predation by dogs and vehicle strike occur as individuals move between feed trees and habitat patches (which are becoming increasingly fragmented and surrounded by urban growth). Hundreds of koalas are killed by vehicle strike yearly in the greater Brisbane region and this is occurring at an unsustainable rate (DSEWPaC, 2012). The influence

119

predation by dogs on population health is difficult to assess, as similarly with car strike incidents most are unlikely to be reported or recorded.

Disease

Chlamydia is well known to be infecting a large proportion of Australia’s koala. Chlamydia results in urinary tract, respiratory tract and reproductive tract infections which leads to infertility in female koala (Dyck and Stratham, 2008). A reduction in fertility can influence population size, growth and viability as reproductive output decreases potentially resulting in localised population extinction. More recently koala retrovirus that infects germ line cells has been identified as a threat to koala populations (Tarlinton et al., 2005).

Occurrence and Potential Habitat

Further survey effort is required to characterise koala habitats. Where necessary, these assessments should comply with criteria outlined in the Koala Conservation Plan 2006 and management plan 2006- 2016. Koala feed trees are abundant in the project area, particularly in REs with E. tereticornis (RE 11.3.4, 12.3.3, 12.3.3a, 12.3.6, 12.3.7, 12.11.14). However, anecdotal evidence suggests that koalas are absent, or extremely scarce on the southern reaches of Curtis Island (GHD, 2009). Suitable habitat within the proposed disturbance zone on the island is unlikely to be occupied by a resident population, and as such, unlikely to represent important habitat. Vegetation with known food trees in the project area is shown in Figure 15.

Although koala records are abundant on the mainland, few occur within 10 km of Arrow’s project areas), most are located inland associated with the ranges and slopes. No koala evidence was located in these areas during our surveys, despite targeted effort. Furthermore, communication with local wildlife carers suggest that the species is extremely rare along the coast. Based on available evidence, this suggests that koala is uncommon.

Nevertheless, essential habitat (as regulated by the Vegetation Management Act 1999 (Qld)) for koala overlaps with the mainland tunnel launch site (base case) and TWAF 8 (alternative case). Clearing in these areas will result in the loss of 48 ha of essential habitat suitable for containing koala, which may require offsets in those components of the project that are assessed under the VM Reg.

Potential Impacts and Mitigation

Project Related Impacts: While koalas are slow moving, they readily cross short distances through unsuitable landscapes (i.e., cleared land). The proposed actions are therefore unlikely to increase fragmentation, but impacts may include:  The loss of habitat associated with the clearing of woodland vegetation for the construction of infrastructure.

 Death or injury of individuals during clearing, and

 Increased risk of vehicle strike on existing roads due to increased traffic frequency. 120

** No core/critical habitat identified É

N O T E S: Figure 15. Possible koala 3D Environmental Regional Ecosystems modifiied from Ecosure (2011) Legend Vegetation Assessment habitat within the local area & Mapping Specialists Koala Arrow LNG Plant Supplementary Report P. O. Box 959 Kenmore, Qld 4069 Possible Habitat to the EIS Terrestrial Ecology Study Phone: (07) 3411 9072; (07) 3878 4344 Mobile: 0447 822 119; 0409 426 916 0 1 2 3 4 Unsuitable Habitat Client Coffey Environments www.3denvironmental.com.au File Path Date Kilometres Project Area Scale 1:127,000 Drawn By DG Checked DS 16/11/2012 A4 C:\Users\Owner\Documents\Clients\3D Environmental\Curtis\3d_Curtis_A4L.mxd

While clearing for infrastructure is irreversible, it is questionable that the lost vegetation is regularly inhabited. Impacts therefore are unlikely to affect the abundance or distribution of the species. Areas of habitat where the species is more common (i.e., on the sub-coastal slopes and ranges) will not be affected.

Recommended Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures that may be used to reduce foreseeable impacts include:

 Clearly delineate clearing boundaries to avoid unnecessary vegetation loss.

 If koala are found during wet season surveys to be undertaken in early 2013 or pre- clearance surveys then appropriate mitigations will be developed and implemented in the species management plan which could include fauna spotter/catchers, limiting vehicle speed limits and habitat rehabilitation.

Clearing of mapped essential habitat may require offsets, however, it is questionable that the lost vegetation is regularly inhabited. Impacts therefore are unlikely to affect the abundance or distribution of the species.

Residual Impacts

Current evidence suggests koalas are rare in the local area, and the impact magnitude is therefore low with a residual impact significance of moderate (12). Whilst mitigation measures will alleviate residual impacts, habitat loss for infrastructure is irreversible. Should habitat offsets be utilised to compensate the loss of mapped essential habitat, the magnitude of impacts will be reduced significantly (extremely low), further reducing the residual impact significance.

While previous targeted surveys have evaluated these species, further work including searches for koala scratches of scats and evaluation of habitat values on the mainland in woodland behind the mainland tunnel launch site, using federal guidelines will improve survey rigour and assessment confidence.

Evaluation under MNES referral Guidelines

Table 18. Assessment of koala under MNES referral guidelines.

Criteria Evaluation ‘Important population’ The koala is un common in proxim ity to Arrow project areas, and ther efore a resident ‘source’ population which contributes to the breeding or dispersal of the species is unlikely. The genetic structure of koalas within the region is unknown and it is therefore not possible to evaluate their contribution to the genetic diversity of the species. The species is not at the limit of its known range at Gladstone. Without further genetic evidence, it re mains unclear if an y populations may c onstitute an ‘important’ population. 122

Criteria Evaluation Criteria 1: lead to a l ong-term decrease in the Unlikely, while there may be the loss of some size of an important population. habitat, this is minor in extent and is unlikely to result in the los s of any individuals, provided appropriate clearing protocols are followed. Criteria 2: reduce the area of occupancy of a n No. the clearing of vegetation is minor in extent. important population Abundant suitable habitat remains common within the local area. Criteria 3: fragment an e xisting important No, clearing activities will not affect the ir population movement or dispersal. Criteria 4: adversely affect habitat critical to the No, while habitats are suitable, the species survival of the species appears uncommon in the area and therefore habitats are unlikely to be critical to the species survival. Criteria 5: disrupt the breeding cycle of an No. important population Criteria 6: modify, destroy, remove or isolate or No. clearing will not lead to the de cline of the decrease habitat leading to the decline of the species. species Criteria 7: result in t he establishment of an No, predators such as foxes and dingoes are invasive species already established. Mitigation measures will be implemented to re duce the risk of development actions leading to an increase in predator abundance. Criteria 8: introduce a disease No. Criteria 9: in terfere with the rec overy of the No. species

5.3.11 Water Mouse (Xeromys myoides)

Status: NC Act: vulnerable; EPBC Act: vulnerable.

Existing Species Knowledge

Sensitivity: High. While the species can sometimes tolerate edge impacts, it is restricted to particular habitat types and senstive to the loss of prey items. It is listed as vulnerable under both state and federal legislation.

Distribution and Habitat: Water mouse occurs in three discrete populations along the eastern and northern Australian coastline between the Northern Territory and Queensland. In Queensland the species occurs between Agnes Water and Cannonvale as well as between the Coomera River (50 km southeast of Brisbane) and Hervey Bay including the islands of Moreton Bay. Water mouse inhabit saline grasslands, mangroves and adjacent sedgelands, margins of freshwater swamps and lakes close to foredunes (Menkhorst and Knight, 2001).

Ecology: Water mouse are a nocturnal/crepuscular, semi-aquatic, species that feed predominantly on marine invertebrates such as crustaceans (inc. mud lobster, grasped crabs), marine polyclads, marine 123

pulmonates and marine bivalves (Van Dyck, 1996, Menkhorst and Knight, 2001). Foraging and spending much of its active time within the intertidal zone, this species is known to move up to 2.9 km per night (Van Dyck and Strahan, 2008). Preferring to use known pathways and avoid swimming (although a capable swimmer), water mouse will forage between known feeding and rest areas throughout the night (Van Dyck and Strahan, 2008).

Water mouse require a diversity of microhabitats including tidal pools, channels, crab holes, crevices and tree hollows in standing and fallen timber, leaves and driftwood. Individuals predominantly utilise the region between the supra-littoral bank and the mangroves, an area providing a variety of microhabitat features. When possible water mouse will nest on the supra-littoral bank above the high tide mark (Van Dyck and Durbidge, 1992; Van Dyck, 1996; Van Dyck and Gynther, 2003). Depending on the location of the nest, the size and construction method of the nest will vary (Van Dyck and Gynther, 2003; Van Dyck et al., 2003).

Breeding is thought to occur year round, with gravid females, lactating females and/or juveniles having been found in most months. Clutches of at least four can be born within nests and may be moved between different sections of the nest. Multiple individuals can live within each nest, indicating multiple females may give birth within a single nest.

Documented Threats: Water mouse and its habitat are facing a diverse range of threatening processes. Habitat loss and degradation due to development including residential development, resorts and marina development, sand mining and construction of easements for infrastructure, are restricting the range and movements of populations. Furthermore, fragmentation of habitat limits water mouse presence via a reduction in potential feeding sources and nesting opportunities, extend edge effects, promotion of weed invasion, and the influence of pest species (DERM, 2009a).

Modifications to hydrology can lead to physical changes of saltmarsh habitat, modify water levels, affecting salinity in tidal waterways, drain coastal and terrestrial wetlands and influence prey abundance (Ball et al., 2006). Herbicides, pesticides and oil in run-off from agricultural areas adjacent to water mouse habitat can potentially influence water quality, prey abundance and community health (Zimmerman et al., 2000).

Introduced predators particularly feral and domestic dogs, foxes and cats may predate water mouse. Finally, recreational activities in proximity to water mouse habitat, such as four-wheel driving, use of boats, jet skis, and camp fires may have localised impacts on water mouse habitat.

Occurrence and Potential Habitat

Site Occupancy: Launch site 1 was a small isolated and disturbed site with no indication of water mouse. Mangroves of the margins of the Red Rover Road site contained an abandoned water mouse nesting hollow, however, the small extent of suitable habitat and lack of fresh water mouse activity suggests that the area may not be currently inhabited.

124

On Curtis Island, no individual water mouse were observed although their presence was indicated by nesting and feeding signs. Evidence was located on the eastern side of Boatshed Point where an active nesting hollow (-23.789432, 151.235043) and feeding signs were discovered. To the west of Boatshed Point an abandoned nesting hollow (-23.790836, 151.228497) and footprints (-23.79036902, 151.228208) were observed (Figure 16). Due to these signs it is assumed that water mouse are currently present and living within these areas.

Whilst mangroves to the east of the LNG site were the most extensive of all habitats examined, no evidence of water mouse was found. However, suitable prey was abundant, large hollows suitable for nesting was common, and disturbance was minimal (if any). The absence of water mouse from this area may therefore reflect difficulty in detecting water mouse activity, diluted by the more extensive area of mangroves. Accordingly, the presence of water mouse cannot be excluded, but is rather assumed.

As records of the species become more common within the local area, it appears increasingly likely that all areas of suitable habitat are occupied. Records of the water mouse around Boatshed Point, and to the north of North China Bay (Worley Parsons, 2011), suggest that intermediary habitats of suitable extent (including North China Bay) are highly likely to be inhabited.

Known Habitat Values: Within the project area all mangrove systems surveyed were suitable for water mouse. Mainland sites appeared less suitable than those on Curtis Island due to heavy disturbance, isolation, smaller extent and fewer hollows. Launch site 1 also lacked suitable supra-littoral habitat adjacent to the mangroves due to the construction of an access road. This access road has been constructed on a rockwall limiting the high tide and therefore high tide refugia (salt couch, grassland).The Curtis Island mangroves appeared highly suitable, relatively undisturbed, containing large hollows and abundant prey (e.g., crabs).

Typical water mouse habitat includes abundant mangroves adjacent to supra-littoral vegetation (e.g., marine couch, sedgelands etc) above the high-tide mark. Nesting occurs within the supra-littoral zone and individuals forage within the adjacent mangroves. However, in locations where there is little supra- littoral vegetation, or where the two are separated by large distances of open mud-flats, animals may nest in tree hollows.

125

** No core/critical habitat identified # É

Active Mound !! !

Possible nesting hollow / prints

Abandoned mound !

N O T E S: Figure 16. Recent (1990+) records of 3D Environmental Regional Ecosystems modifiied from Ecosure (2011) Legend Vegetation Assessment water mouse within the local area & Mapping Specialists Common Name, Source Water mouse Project Area Arrow LNG Plant Supplementary Report P. O. Box 959 Kenmore, Qld 4069 ! Water Mouse, Ecosmart Ecology 2012 Known Habitat to the EIS Terrestrial Ecology Study Phone: (07) 3411 9072; (07) 3878 4344 Mobile: 0447 822 119; 0409 426 916 0 1 2 3 4 # Water Mouse, Worley Parsons 2011 Possible Habitat Client Coffey Environments www.3denvironmental.com.au & Water Mouse, GHD 2012 Unsuitable Habitat File Path Date Kilometres Scale 1:86,634 Drawn By DG Checked DS 16/11/2012 A4 C:\Users\Owner\Documents\Clients\3D Environmental\Curtis\3d_Curtis_Fig16_A4L.mxd

Plate 7. Potential Water mouse habitat and Plate 8 . Entrance to water mouse nesting hollow.

The supra-littoral zones, including marine couch, is not extensive on Curtis Island. At its most extensive on Boatshed point, this area would have been only 15 m wide, but was more often restricted (e.g., < five metres wide). On balance, supra-littoral zones were also widely separated by expansive distances of open mudflats, juxtaposing mangroves only in the eastern and western corners of bays. No nests were located in the supra-littoral zones, which is not surprising given the above factors. Rather, animals are more likely to use mangrove hollows, which allows safe passage and is surrounded by foraging habitats.

The mangroves themselves were low and extremely dense. This is typical in mangrove communities dominated by red mangrove (Rhizophora stylosa), which can form almost pure stands. Large arching prop roots were characteristic of the habitat, and when located nests were positioned in large branches or trunks. While the nest chamber is above the high-tide mark, all access points located during this survey were below high-tide water level, a common strategy to by the species to avoid predation.

Regional and Local Context: Within the Port of Gladstone, the water mouse is difficult to detect. They often nest in tree hollows, which are less obvious than terrestrial mounds, and have low catch rates (S. Rose pers. comm.). Records are likely to under-represent their distribution and abundance.

On Curtis Island, the water mouse has been recorded at several locations including:

 A captured individual (Worley Parsons, 2011) near a small inlet located just south of Laird Point (no GPS coordinates provided). This is approximately 4.5 km north of North China Bay.  An abandoned mound nest, suggesting the area may be inhabited, located approximately 2.7 km north of North China Bay (BAAM, 2009).  To the west of Boatshed Point (this study).  To the east of Boatshed Point (this study).

These records suggest that water mouse are distributed throughout mangroves along the southwestern shores of Curtis Island. Until recently, these habitats were connected, or at most separated by short distances (i.e., less than 700 m) of rocky shoreline associated with headlands (e.g., Boatshed Point). While water mouse may be reluctant to move around headlands where mangroves are absent, natural

127

movement, and particularly dispersal, is feasible. Therefore, the southwest Curtis Island water mouse population could be described as a string of sub-populations with some intermixing (i.e., meta-population dynamics). This will have included sub-populations to the east of Boatshed Point, between Boatshed Point and Hamilton Point, to the west of Hamilton Point, and at North China Bay.

On the mainland, water mouse have been recorded:

 Approximately 4.5 km south of Fisherman Landing (two captures; GHD, 2012).  Approximately 4 km north of Fisherman Landing (seven records; QGC, 2011).  On the western banks of the Calliope River opposite the existing coal loading facility (S. Rose unpub. data).

Water mouse are able to move through narrow mangrove fringes (e.g., widths of less than approximately six metres; S. Van Dyck pers. comm.) and historically these mainland habitats would have been connected. However, Fishermans Landing is likely to pose a significant barrier to movement and under current conditions it is likely that populations to the north and south of this structure are isolated from one- another.

Large areas of potential habitat occurs to the north along both sides of The Narrows, including upstream of Graham Creek. Extensive habitat also occurs to the immediate east of the proposed Arrow Energy LNG plant on Curtis Island, extending to Endfield Creek (part of the broader southwest Curtis Island population). The occurrence and abundance of water mouse in these habitats is unknown. Local populations within Port Curtis are undoubtedly breeding and dispersing.

Under federal ‘significant impact guidelines’ for the species (policy statement 3.20), any population which has evidence of recent activity is considered important. Recent activity was located to the east and west of Boatshed Point, and these sub-populations are therefore important, as defined under the guidelines. While no recent activity is known from other nearby habitats (e.g., North China Bay), dis-used mounds and suitable habitat suggest occupation is likely, and as such, these should be also considered important sub-populations.

While important, based on current distribution and other populations throughout the species range, the Port Curtis population is unlikely to be critical to the species survival (criteria 4; DEWHA 2006). No habitat within the local area is listed under the critical habitat register for this species.

Potential Impacts and Mitigation

Project Related Impacts:

Habitat Loss and Degradation

Immediate impacts to water mouse will occur due to loss of habitat during vegetation clearing (criteria 2). Loss of habitat reduces the extent and abundance of available foraging and nesting opportunities, whilst reducing the area of occupancy of populations (criteria 2,4,5). Current proposed activities will result in the clearing of 1.7 ha along the northern margin of Hamilton Point in North China Bay, and 0.79 ha to the

128

west of Boatshed Point. The loss of these habitats, in the context of available habitat within the study area and along the southwestern shoreline of Curtis Island, are minor in extent (less than1 per cent of available habitat within the study area). The largest areas of mangrove clearing on the mainland, will coincide with the construction of launch site 1. This habitat, which is already isolated and heavily modified, has little value for the species. The loss of this habitat will be inconsequential. The proposed activity is therefore unlikely to lead to a measurable reduction in the area of occupancy of the population (criteria 2; DEWHA 2006).

Fragmentation and Isolation

Although mangroves on either side of Boatshed Point and Hamilton Point are separated by narrow strips of terrestrial vegetation, the water mouse is reluctant to enter terrestrial habitats species (S. Van Dyck pers. comm.). Rather, individuals are likely to use coastal edges to traverse around headlands, where individuals may pass through approximately 600 m of rocky habitat, well within the nightly movement distance of the species. Naturally, these areas are unlikely to have imposed significant movement barriers for the species (S. Van Dyck pers. comm.).

Existing development on Hamilton Point around North China Bay (associated with the GLNG development), has removed natural cover and increased lighting on the ground. These, and other LNG activities on Curtis Island to the north, are likely to have created movement barriers restricting passage throughout the Curtis Island population. Sub-populations located between these facilities (e.g., North China Bay) may now be isolated.

Similar structures, although less extensive, are planned for Boatshed Point. These will also modify the shoreline, increase light on the ground, and therefore reduce movement potential. Consequently, the proposed actions are likely to contribute to the increased fragmentation of the Curtis Island population, and in particular, isolate sub-populations between North China Bay and Boatshed Point (criteria 3) for the life of the infrastructure in that location (assumed to be 30-50 years). If isolated in perpertuity, it is considered that the long-term viability of these sub-populations will possibly be compromised (criteria 1, 6) (Lindenmeyer and Burgman 2005, Lindenmeyer and Fischer 2006).

However, there may be some potential to return operational areas on Boatshed Point to habitats which allow water mouse movement upon decommissioning. If successful in re-establishing movement, even at a reduced rate, the sub-population would be isolated only for the life of the infrastructure that would serve as a barrier (assumed 30-50 years). The rate of genetic loss and demographic stochasticity due to isolation is influenced by many factors, but on balance may be a prolonged process in this example. Re- establishing of immigration after a period of 50 years may avoid these deleterious impacts. Furthermore, reinstatement of immigration following decommission may allow the population to re-establish around Boatshed Point should it be extirpated from the area surrounding Arrow facilities, due to either fragmentation or other process (i.e., predation or increased mortality without immigration to augment abundance).

129

Other facilities, similar to the Arrow LNG plant, are under construction along the southwestern shores of Curtis Island. Pockets of habitat, including areas that support known or likely populations, will be surrounded by similar movement barriers. The long-term viability of these remaining, small, isolated populations is unclear. Accordingly, existing LNG approvals may have already fragmented the Curtis Island water mouse population. In this context, the proposed Arrow development will likely result in the possible isolation of only one additional a small population to the west of Boatshed Point.

Large areas of suitable habitat will remain unaffected to the east of Boatshed Point. These areas, which are large in extent, are likely to contain sizable populations of water mouse.

Lighting

While the response of water mouse to light is unknown, it is probable that similar to other rodents they are light adverse. Light impacts could therefore affect water mouse values by:  Increasing predation from owls or introduced predators such as cats and foxes.  Affecting movement, including foraging and dispersal, thereby reducing the value of habitats for resident animals.  Reducing prey abundance.  Leading to the abandonment of nesting hollows/mounds due to interruption or modification of biological rhythms. Lighting will be most severe in close proximity to infrastructure. Dense thick mangroves are likely to block light penetration, while impacts may be more widespread in open marine couch grassland or similar intertidal communities. Fortunately, open intertidal communities are restricted around the proposed LNG plant and do not appear to be frequented by the species. Therefore light impacts will be localised.

Lighting may contribute to reduced movement along shorelines between areas of habitat.

Introduced Predators

Introduced predators particularly feral dogs/dingoes, foxes and feral cats, may predate upon water mouse (DERM, 2009a). Evidence of all these three predatory species was noted during the surveys, and the proposed activities are therefore unlikely to introduce a new, harmful species (criteria 7; DEWHA 2006). Increased predator abundance may occur as a result of the proposed activities, although on balance any increase is unlikely to be significant. Furthermore, observations suggest that these introduced predators are reluctant to enter water mouse habitats (i.e., mangroves).

Alterations to Water Quality

Changes in the natural hydrology, modified water levels and salinity in tidal waterways may impact on water mouse and their prey. The level of impact on mangrove systems, particularly crab communities, is of significance to water mouse populations. Crab communities are highly sensitive to changes in water quality and alterations will indirectly impact water mouse through changes in the health and abundance of prey items (Bamber and Depledge, 1997; Ball et al., 2006). Potential sources of water quality 130

contamination include increased sedimentation (particularly during construction) and contaminants in runoff.

Recommended Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures, which will be considered for incorporation into Arrow’s pre-construction management plans:

Habitat Loss and Degradation

 Direct habitat loss can only be mitigated by avoidance, which is not always possible. Design infrastructure to reduce impacts on shoreline habitat, where possible, and reduce the risk of unnecessary clearing by demarcating disturbance areas.

 Prohibit access to the saltpans and fringing mangroves (RE 12.1.2 and 12.1.3) outside the planned area of disturbance of the mainland tunnel entry shaft and tunnel spoil disposal area. (C17.24)

Reduction of Movement and Dispersal Potential

No mitigation measures consistent with the proposed shoreline infrastructure are practical, and as such, fragmentation will occur during operation. Mitigation therefore, must focus on rehabilitation and re- establishment of potential movement corridors following decommission. Accordingly, a detailed water mouse management plan should be developed which specifically includes shoreline management and rehabilitation following decommissioning. The plan should include details of structures which must be removed, earthworks (including rock works) required to establish ‘as close as practical’ natural shoreline habitat, and areas where revegetation may be possible. Timelines and responsibility for completing the work should be included, and the plan should be developed and approved by a suitably qualified ecologist with a working knowledge of the species.

Lighting

Methods for alleviating the impact of lighting on water mouse may include:

 Reduce lighting wherever possible, particularly in close proximity to water mouse habitats (e.g. mangroves and marine couch). In particular, void where practical, lighting in locations where movement between foraging and nesting habitats (e.g., between mangroves and the supralittoral zone) occurs.

 Consider measures to minimise light emitted from the LNG plant during the detailed design of the LNG plant including: o Assess the necessity and choice of lighting for every light in the plant area: o Use low-pressure sodium (LPS) lights as a first-choice light source and high-pressure sodium (HPS) lights where LPS is not practical. o Replace short-wavelength light with long-wavelength light and exclude short- wavelength light with the use of filters.

131

o Avoid using halogen, metal halide or fluorescent lights (white lights) where possible, and only use white lights in contained areas where colour rendition is required. o Minimise the number and wattage of lights, and recess lighting into structures where possible. o Use timers and motion-activated light switches. o Use reflective materials to delineate equipment or pathways and use embedded lighting for roads. o Position doors and windows on the sides of buildings facing away from marine turtle nesting beaches and install and use window coverings to reduce light emissions. o Use elevated horizons or vegetation to screen rookery beaches from light sources.

Introduced Predators

Liaise with Biosecurity Queensland and Gladstone Regional Council on project biosecurity and pest management programs. Notify Gladstone Regional Council of any new declared or notifiable pest species. These programs should particularly focus on the boundaries of the project site with the Environmental Management Precinct (C17.10).

Alterations in Water Quality

Without further data on impacts to water quality, suitable mitigation measures cannot be proposed. Project activities will seek to comply with appropriate water quality guidelines. Mitigation of impacts to water quality should be undertaken as per the guidelines of the stormwater management plan (EIS Appendix 06 – Stormwater Quality Impact Assessment). It is vital that impacts from site run off, erosion or due to stockpile placement, do not impact on mangrove systems, water mouse or their prey (e.g., crabs). Furthermore, complying with the regulatory requirements detailed in the acid sulfate soils management plan (EIS Appendix 04 – Acid Sulfate Soil Impact Assessment) should further alleviate potential impacts on water mouse.

Residual Impacts

The limited clearing within the mangroves and adjoining habitat (4.7 ha of mangrove to be cleared in Arrow LNG project area) is unlikely to significantly reduce the extent of water mouse populations. Cumulatively, 18.4 ha of mangrove vegetation will be lost across all LNG facility developments.

While vegetation clearing from Arrow activities will not significantly affect habitat extent, the modification of shoreline has the potential to affect movement, and therefore isolate the sub-population to the west of Boat Shed Point. Three similar LNG projects are currently under construction, or have approval for construction, along the western shores of Curtis Island. These actions are likely to lead to the isolation of several sub-populations, possibly in perpetuity. Without immigration, these small sub-populations will have an increased risk of extinction, which if occurrent in multiple small sub-populations, could lead to the loss of the species along a substantial stretch of southwest Curtis Island.

132

However, the Arrow operation itself will result in the isolation of only one sub-population, which in the context of all other subpopulations in the Port Curtis area is not extensive. Furthermore, while not tested, the re-establishment of structures encouraging movement following decommission has a reasonable chance of success. Re-establishing movement will alleviate deleterious genetic impacts, stochastic impacts and possibly allow recolonisation should the sub-population have already become extinct.

In light of the above considerations (extent of impact in context and post-operation mitigation), the residual impact on water mouse from Arrow activities are evaluated as Moderate (17). However, it is recognised that this assumes a reasonable chance of movement reinstatement following decommissioning, and that the cumulative impacts from all LNG operations are likely to be High to Extremely High.

The provision of mangrove offsets to compensate habitat loss will not alleviate fragmentation or isolation impacts.

Evaluation under MNES referral Guidelines

Table 19. Assessment of water mouse under MNES referral guidelines.

Criteria Evaluation ‘Important population’ Yes, under the Significant impact guidelines for the vulnerable water mouse Xeromys myoides (DEWHA 2009), and important population is one that shows evidence of re cent activity. Recent activity was observed during our surveys. Criteria 1: lead to a l ong-term decrease in the Clearing is unlikely to lead to a decrease in size of an important population. population size, however the long-term viab ility of the sub-population to the west of Boatshed Point is unclear due to isolation. The loss of this sub-population would reduce the size of the broader Curtis Island population. The long-term viability of other sub-populations along the southwest shoreline of Curtis Island from other LNG developments remains unclear. Criteria 2: reduce the area of occupancy of a n Should isolation lead to the loss of th e sub- important population population to the west of Boatshed Point, the area of occupancy of this species will be reduced. However, mitigation measures, which remain untested, may avoid the long-term isolation of the sub-popuation. Other areas of extensive habitat within Port Curtis, which are likely to be occupied, will not be affected. Criteria 3: fragment an e xisting important Yes, development on Boatshed Point is likely to population isolate populations in the west. Existing approvals and operations at H amilton Point have already impacted possible north passage. Impacts may be reversed, at least in part, following decommissioning if actions are undertaken to e stablish ‘as close as possible’

133

Criteria Evaluation natural shoreline habitat. Criteria 4: adversely affect habitat critical to the It is unlikely that the sub-population to the west survival of the species of Boatshed Point is critical to the survival of the species. Criteria 5: disrupt the breeding cycle of an Unlikely. While lighting has some potential to important population affect breeding, light pollution in mangroves is diluted rapidly. Fur ther, light management practices will be im plemented to reduce this impact. Criteria 6: modify, destroy, remove or isolate or It is possible that isolation could lead to the loss decrease habitat leading to the decline of the of the sub-population in habitats to the west of species Boatshed Point. While this will lead to a decline of the s pecies in the Port Curtis area, impacts do not affect the s pecies across its broader range. Miti gation measures, which remain untested, may also assist in aleviating the long- term isolation of this sub-population.

Criteria 7: result in t he establishment of an No, predators such as foxes, cats and dingoes invasive species are already established. Mit igation measures will be implemented to r educe the risk of development actions leading to an increase in predator abundance. Criteria 8: introduce a disease No. Criteria 9: in terfere with the rec overy of the No. species

5.4 Essential Habitat Mapping

A representation of essential habitat in the project area is shown in Figure 17 with its relevance to individual sites in the project area discussed briefly below. Essential habitat is regulated under the VM Act and will require offset if this legislation is deemed applicable to individual project sites. The requirement for offsets to essential habitat will in some cases be accommodated by offset required under other offset policy mechanisms (e.g., DSEWPaC, 2012).

5.4.1 Curtis Island Site

Three areas of essential habitat, as mapped under the VM Act, for koalas occur within the Curtis Island development area. These areas include REs 12.3.3, 12.3.7, and 12.3.11. Clearing for the purpose of infrastructure development will result in the loss of two patches in their entirety, while a minor portion of the third patch will be affected. In total, 32.35 ha of essential habitat will be affected.

While these areas are mapped as essential habitat, and if the project is to be assessed under the VM Act require offset, our data suggests that these areas are unlikely to be regularly frequented by the species. Future survey work planned for early 2013 will further assess the use of these areas by koala.

134

Although not assessed within this report, it is recognised that essential habitat for beach stone curlew is located on the eastern side of boatshed point.

5.4.2 Launch Site 1

Launch site 1 does not contain any essential habitat.

5.4.3 Red Rover Road Site

Red Rover Road Site contains essential habitat for koala (vulnerable). RE mapping provided by DERM (2009) indicates that this location is formed by RE 12.3.3 (Eucalyptus tereticornis open-forest to woodland) although field survey indicates this RE is not present on the site which is dominated by RE 12.11.6. Based on our investigations, the species is very uncommon in the local area and there appear to be no local records. It could therefore be argued that this mapped essential habitat is not applicable as the species will not occur. In total, clearing for infrastructure at this location will result in the loss of 5.4 ha of mapped essential koala habitat.

5.4.4 Mainland tunnel launch site Essential habitat for koala (RE 12.3.3) and little pied bat (RE 11.3.29, 12.3.3) occurs within the mainland tunnel launch site. While no records of either of species occur within the proposed clearing zones, records of little pied bats occur within 1 km to the north. The presence of suitable habitat for koalas and connectivity to large patches of habitat (via a creek that runs parallel to Gladstone-Mt Larcom Road), may provide access for koalas to this area. Therefore, neither species can be completely discounted, although both are considered unlikely.

In total clearing will affect 10.26 ha of essential habitat at the site.

5.4.5 TWAF 7

Areas of vegetation adjacent to, and within, TWAF 7 are mapped as essential habitat for Lewin’s rail. The area consists of tidally influenced mangroves and mudflats and is not the preferred habitat of the species which is more commonly associated with freshwater environments. It is possible that a transient individual was recorded whilst in the area, however this is not representative of a permanent population. It is unlikely that Lewin’s rail is a permanent inhabitant of the mangroves surrounding TWAF 7 and although a small area of essential habitat will be cleared (0.74 ha) it is unlikely that offsets will be required.

5.4.6 TWAF 8

TWAF 8 does not contain any essential habitat. However, it is noted that koala essential habitat is located approximately 500 m to the east and coastal sheathtail bat is approximately 200 m to the east.

Although there are records of coastal sheathtail bats from the area, these records occur well south of their known range. It is therefore unlikely that coastal sheathtail bats frequent the area.

135

136

Koala É Koala Coastal sheathtail bat, koala Koala

Rusty monitor, Beach stone-curlew little pied bat

Koala

Lewin's rail Wallum froglet

Koala

N O T E S: Figure 17.Essential habitat for NC Act 3D Environmental Regional Ecosystems modifiied from Ecosure (2011) Legend Vegetation Assessment species within the local area & Mapping Specialists Essential habitat regrowth Arrow LNG Plant Supplementary Report P. O. Box 959 Kenmore, Qld 4069 Essential habitat to the EIS Terrestrial Ecology Study Phone: (07) 3411 9072; (07) 3878 4344 Mobile: 0447 822 119; 0409 426 916 Client 0 1 2 3 4 Project Area Coffey Environments www.3denvironmental.com.au File Path Date Kilometres Scale 1:86,634 Drawn By DG Checked DS 16/11/2012 A4 C:\Users\Owner\Documents\Clients\3D Environmental\Curtis\3d_Curtis_Fig17_A4L.mxd

5.5 Site Specific Assessments

The following assessment considers impacts created by all proposed and potential project sites individually. Individual project sites are indicated as either ‘base case’ (considered the preferred development option), ‘alternative case’ (alternative option but not the preferred option) and ‘both cases’ (no alternative options available).

5.5.1 Mainland Tunnel Launch Site (Both Cases)

Layout Changes Minor changes to the site layout include a general reconfiguration of access corridors and a general reduction in the extent of estuarine habitats (in particular, RE 12.1.2, samphire vegetation with least concern VM Act status) to be impacted. The impact footprint now also extends to the west of the railway corridor whereas the previous footprint skirted the corridor‘s eastern boundary.

EIS Assessment Results

Flora: The EIS (Ecosure, 2011) classified the terrestrial habitat at this site as being entirely dominated by RE 11.3.4 (of concern VM Act status), varying significantly from certified RE mapping which has the area classified as a mosaic of RE 12.3.3 (endangered VM Act status) and 11.3.29 (least concern VM Act status). Littoral habitats are represented as RE 12.1.2, which is consistent with certified RE mapping.

The Ecosure assessment was based on two secondary floristic sites, both placed outside and west of the original impact footprint.

Fauna: EIS studies (Ecosure 2011) recognised that saltpan habitats (RE 12.1.2) are suitable for shorebird feeding, and suggested that saltpan habitats may support 15 migratory shorebirds and is therefore a ‘significant shorebird habitat’. Furthermore, the area was identified as a known migratory shorebird roost location. Fringing mangroves (RE 12.1.3) are recognised as possible habitat for water mouse.

Terrestrial vegetation at the site (e.g., RE 11.3.4) is recognised as providing habitat for a variety of EVNT species and is part of a state wildlife corridor. Possible EVNT species are documented as grey-headed flying-fox, square-tailed kite, grey goshawk, powerful owl, koala, coastal sheathtail bat and black-chinned honeyeater. Two EVNT listed species, the grey-headed flying-fox and squatter pigeon, were observed within five km of the mainland tunnel launch site.

The EIS study also recognised this area as essential habitat for koala and coastal sheathtail bat

Supplementary Survey Results

Floristic Assessment: A total of seven floristic survey sites were placed within the revised impact footprint with the findings summarised:

138

 Terrestrial vegetation within the impact footprint, adjacent to the littoral margins is typical of RE 12.3.3, dominated by Eucalyptus tereticornis in open forest formation,

 A narrow band of Melaleuca nervosa shrubland occupies the interface between terrestrial and littoral habitats. Based on discussions with Queensland Herbarium, this habitat is best placed within RE 12.1.2 due to the partial occupancy of samphire grasses and herbs in the ground cover. It should be noted that the dominant proportion of melaleuca forming the canopy of this habitat are senescent. There are two distinctive variants of RE 12.1.2 on the site with the dominant expression being a largely unvegetated scald. A number of restricted rises on the estuarine plain are occupied by samphire grassland (Sporobolus virginicus dominant) and these have been differentiated in the revised mapping layer (as per Table 20).  West of the rail corridor, the vegetation forms a habitat that is consistent with RE 12.3.3a (endangered VM Act status), being a variable mix of Eucalyptus tereticornis, Lophostemon suaveolens, Corymbia tessellaris and Eucalyptus crebra. Consideration was given to classification as RE 12.3.11 ( of concern VM Act status) although due to doubts concerning the regional distribution of this ecosystem, defaulting to the RE with the higher conservation status was considered the most appropriate course of action.

It should be noted that RE 12.3.3a and RE 11.3.4 are floristically and structurally similar. The classification as RE 12.3.11 in the supplementary assessment is based largely upon its position within the SEQ bioregion. The location of survey sites relative to the mainland tunnel launch site, compared to RE mapping produced by Ecosure (2011) is provided in Figure 18. A summary of impact to significant vegetation based on mapping revision is provided in Table 20.

The site presents no specific habitat for EVNT species. Ground cover is heavily degraded with exotic thatch grass (Hyparrhenia rufa) which further diminishes the ecological value of the site. A search was undertaken for the restricted endemic Epaltes sp. nov, on the littoral margins although the species was not located. Epaltes sp. nov, is a newly discovered species (A. Bean, Queensland Herbarium, pers. comm. Feb 2012) known from one location in southeast Queensland, approximately 11 km north of the mainland tunnel launch site, and two locations in central Queensland coast. The record to the north of the mainland tunnel launch site was collected on the interface between eucalypt woodland and estuarine habitats during floristic surveys undertaken by 3D Environmental that were associated with another study.

Table 20. Impacts to REs at the mainland tunnel launch site. Veg. Management Biodiversity Status Clearing Impacts (ha) Regional Act Status Based on Revised Ecosystem Mapping Layer 12.3.3 Endangered Endangered 6.44 12.3.3a Endangered Endangered 1.43 12.1.2 (scald) Least concern No concern at present 32.19 12.1.2 (vegetated) Least concern No concern at present 0.31

139

Plate 9. Eucalyptus tereticornis dominant woodland (RE 12.3.3) at mainland tunnel launch site (3D assessment site GC8).

Fauna Assessment: Only a single migratory species (rainbow bee-eater) was observed during the supplementary assessment. However available habitat within the study area, particularly the mudflats, are highy likely to support a large diversity of migratory waders and shorebirds. No targeted surveys were undertaken for water mouse, although historic records to the north and south, and the presence of contiguous mangroves suggest that this species will occur.

Introduced predator‘s tracks (e.g., feral cats and dogs), were common in woodland habitats. Stands of E. tereticornis provide habitat and resources for grey-headed flying-fox, koala and black-chinned honeyeater, although the koala is uncommon in the area and unlikely to frequent this location with any regularity. Squatter pigeon, which is relatively common in the local area and often observed along tracks and road verges, may also occur in this area although thick tall grass is generally unsuitable. While other EVNT taxa considered in the EIS are possible at this site, they were generally considered unlikely or at most transient (i.e., represented by sporadic records of mobile individuals rather than resident populations) due to habitats being sub-optimal (e.g., grey goshawk), disturbed and fragmented (e.g., powerful owl) or outside the species documented range (e.g., coastal sheathtail bat).

Mapped essential habitat for koala, little pied bat and rusty monitor (Varanus semiremex - no longer listed under the NC Act) occurs over or in close proximity to this location. Current development plans will result in the loss of 10.6 ha of essential habitat for koala, and offsets for this loss may be required. However, it is questionable that the lost vegetation is regularly inhabited. Impacts therefore are unlikely to affect the abundance or distribution of the species.

Fringing mangroves will not be affected and therefore impacts on water mouse are not anticipated. Mobile species such as squatter pigeon, little pied bat and black-chinned honeyeater use habitats and resources over a broad area, and the loss of habitat at the mainland tunnel launch site are minor in local area context. Some koala habitat may be lost, and despite the fact that this area is unlikely to be regularly frequented by the species, some offset may be required due to its designation as essential habitat.

140

12.1.2 " 12.3.3 " 12.3.3 12.1.2" 12.3.3a " " 12.3.3 "

12.3.3a "

12.1.2 "

Legend Project Area Regional Ecosystems 12.11.14 3D Environmental Sites 11.3.4 12.3.3

" Quaternary 12.1.2 12.3.3a

" Secondary 12.1.2 (sporobolus grassland) 12.3.7

" Tertiary 12.1.3 non-rem

N O T E S: Figure 18. Location of flora survey sites at 3D Environmental Regional Ecosystems modifiied from Ecosure (2011) Vegetation Assessment mainland tunnel launch site & Mapping Specialists Arrow LNG Plant Supplementary Report P. O. Box 959 Kenmore, Qld 4069 to the EIS Terrestrial Ecology Study Phone: (07) 3411 9072; (07) 3878 4344 Mobile: 0447 822 119; 0409 426 916 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Client Coffey Environments www.3denvironmental.com.au File Path Date Kilometres Scale 1:23,419 Drawn By DG Checked DS 29/11/2012 A4 C:\Users\Owner\Documents\Clients\3D Environmental\Curtis\3d_Curtis_A4L.mxd

5.5.2 TWAF 8 (Alternative Case)

Layout Changes

No specific changes have been made to the layout of TWAF 8.

EIS Assessment Results

Flora: The EIS (Ecosure 2011) has classified the terrestrial habitat at this site as being dominated by RE 11.3.4 (of concern VM Act status) with a narrow linear belt being described as possessing elements of RE 11.11.15 and RE 11.12.4, both being vine thicket habitats with a VM Act status of least concern.

Fauna: No targeted surveys were undertaken by Ecosure at TWAF 8, however visual inspections noted habitat was representative of RE 11.3.4 (of concern). Within the area an abundance of tree hollows, arboreal termitaria, weeds, a raptor nest and migratory rainbow bee-eater were noted. The surrounding area is part of a state wildlife corridor and contains essential habitat for coastal sheathtail bat and koala. The area provides potential habitat for grey-headed flying-fox, powerful owl, koala, Brigalow scaly-foot, square tailed kite, grey goshawk, black chinned honeyeater, northern quoll, yakka skink, Dunmall’s snake, and squatter pigeon.

Supplementary Survey Results

Flora: Three floristic survey sites were placed within the revised impact footprint with the findings summarised:

 The dominant vegetation on site is RE 11.3.4, consistent with Ecosure (2011).

 A well-defined ephemeral stream with fluvial cobble bed load dissects the area. The stream is fringed by riparian open forest with dominant Melaleuca fluviatilis and Casuarina cunninghamiana with a vine forest sub-canopy which is well developed in some locations. This habitat is best defined as RE 11.3.25 (least concern VM Act status), and presents a better fit than the suggested RE 11.12.4 and RE 11.11.15, occurring on a fluvial deposit. It should be noted that this fringe provides only a narrow, largely unmappable corridor.

The location of survey sites relative to the TWAF 8 site, compared to RE mapping produced by Ecosure (2011) is provided in Figure 19. A calculation of clearing impacts is provided in Table 21.

The vine thicket sub-canopy of the riparian habitat RE 11.3.25 presents potential habitat for Actephila sessiliflora (near threatened, NC Act). Targeted searches for the species were undertaken during assessment of TWAF 8 and the species was not located. It should be noted that the habitat was heavily degraded with coral berry (Rivina humilis), lessening its value as potential habitat for EVNT species.

142

! !

11.3.4 " 11.3.4 " 11.3.7 "

Non-remnant "

Legend 3D Environmental Sites Regional Ecosystems

" Quaternary 11.3.4

" Secondary non-rem

" Tertiary Project Area

N O T E S: 3D Environmental Source: Regional Ecosystems as per Ecosure (2011) Figure 19. Location of flora survey Vegetation Assessment sites at TWAF 8 & Mapping Specialists Arrow LNG Plant Supplementary Report P. O. Box 959 Kenmore, Qld 4069 to the EIS Terrestrial Ecology Study Phone: (07) 3411 9072; (07) 3878 4344 Mobile: 0447 822 119; 0409 426 916 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Client Coffey Environments www.3denvironmental.com.au File Path Date ! Kilometres Scale 1:23,419 Drawn By DG Checked DS 30/10/2012 A4 C:\Users\Owner\Documents\Clients\3D Environmental\Curtis\3d_Curtis_A4L.mxd

! !

Table 21. Project related clearing impacts at TWAF 8. Veg. Management Biodiversity Status Clearing Impacts (ha) Regional Status Based on Revised Ecosystem Mapping Layer 11.3.4 Of concern Of concern 23.91

Plate 10. Rocky ephemeral stream with a narrow fringe of RE 11.3.25 at TWAF 8. The habitat is not mapped due to its e xtremely narrow and limited extent.

Fauna: The study site TWAF 8 is adjacent to essential koala habitat suggesting that koalas may use the area although there are no survey records of the species at the site (see Section 5.3.10). Although this area is listed as essential habitat for coastal sheathtail bat, it is unlikely that the species occurs this far south of its known range. As part of a state wildlife corridor, the area is considered to be of significance to wildlife. Further, the proximity of TWAF 8 to Mt. Larcom and Targinie Creek increases the likelihood that EVNT species will occur. The loss of this habitat is however unlikely to significantly impact local fauna values as it represents a relatively small clearing within a much broader area of contiguous vegetation

5.5.3 Red Rover Road Site (Alternative Case)

Layout Changes

This site has been recently added to the project area and has not been subject to previous field inspection.

Current Status

Certified RE mapping represents the site as comprising predominantly RE 12.11.6 (least concern VM Act status) with a significant portion of RE 12.3.3 located in the central portion of site. There are no previously recorded EVNT flora species known from the site although: The Red Rover Road site contains essential habitat for koala (within RE 12.3.3) as per DERM (2009a).

144

Supplementary Survey Results

Flora: A total of seven floristic sites (see Appendix A) were recorded during assessment of the Red Rover Road site:

 The dominant vegetation on site is RE 11.12.6, consistent with DERM (2009a).

 No RE 12.3.3 was located on the property.

 A narrow flowing stream is formed on the eastern portion of the property which is fringed by well-developed woodland of Melaleuca fluviatilis and Eucalyptus tereticornis characteristic of RE 12.3.7 (least concern VM Act).

 The stream passes into mangrove shrubland typical of RE 12.1.3 on the upper limit of tidal influence.

The predominant extent of RE 12.11.6 on the site is structurally intact and characterised by native ground and shrub layers. The site however presents no specific habitat value for EVNT species and none were recorded during the survey.

The location of survey sites relative to the Red Rover Road site, coupled with revised RE mapping is provide in Figure 20. An assessment of vegetation clearing impacts for the site are shown in Table 22.

Table 22. Vegetation clearing impacts for the Red Rover Road site. Veg. Management Biodiversity Status Clearing Impacts (ha) Regional Status Based on Revised Ecosystem Mapping Layer 12.11.6 Least concern No concern at present 22.71 12.3.7 Least concern Of concern 0.59 12.1.3 Least concern No concern at present 0.61

Fauna : Eucalyptus trees on site provide potential habitat for grey-headed flying-fox, grey goshawk, square-tailed kite and black-chinned honeyeater. Ground dwelling button-quail (painted button-quail) were observed making use of the grassy understory in eucalypt woodlands and the site provides suitable habitat for squatter pigeon. Adjoining the northern edge of the site, a tidally influenced stream contained mangrove habitat that was utilised by migratory species such as rainbow bee-eater, leaden flycatcher, and eastern osprey. Other EVNT species that may utilise the site include grey goshawk and square- tailed kite.

Searches undertaken in mangrove areas revealed an abandoned water mouse nest although further assessment of habitat indicated that it was unlikely that water mouse were still present within the area. Evidence of their presence was old and no recent activity or indications of presence were observed. The restricted area of mangroves along the northern edge of the site is unlikely to contain water mouse.

145

Non-remnant É

12.11.6

Non-remnant

12.1.3

12.11.6 12.3.7 Regrowth

Regrowth

12.11.6 12.11.6

12.11.6 Non-remnant

12.11.6 12.3.7

12.11.6

12.3.7 12.11.6 12.3.712.11.6

Non-remnant ############################# ##################### #################################### #

####### ####### ###################################### ################################ #################

MAIN MAP # ################ ################## ############# ###

N O T E S: Legend Figure 20. Vegetation management status 3D Environmental DIGITAL CADASTRAL DATA BASE Vegetation Assessment © The State of Queensland (Department of Natural & Mapping Specialists Resources) [2011] at Red Rover Site Vegetation Management Status Arrow LNG Plant Supplementary Report P. O. Box 959 Source: Regional Ecosystems as per 3D Environmental (2012) Kenmore, Qld 4069 Least Concern to the EIS Terrestrial Ecology Study Phone: (07) 3411 9072; (07) 3878 4344 Client Mobile: 0447 822 119; 0409 426 916 Non-remnant 0 50 100 150 200 Coffey Environments www.3denvironmental.com.au File Path Date Metres Project Area Scale 1:5,633 Drawn By DG Checked DS C:\Use rs\Owner\Documents\Clients\3D Environmental\Curtis\3d_Curtis_Veg3_ A4L.mxd 30/10/2012 A4 C:\Users\Owner\Documents\Clients\3D Environmental\Curtis\3d_Curtis_Veg3_A4L.mxd

Disturbance was common on the site, with a large area at the eastern end of the site cleared of vegetation. A large number of motorbike trails were present on the site and were obviously well used and it is expected that this would be a significant disturbance to native wildlife. Large amounts of household rubbish and debris had been dumped throughout the site.

No koalas were seen during supplementary surveys of the Red Rover Road site although it is possible they may at times inhabit the area or adjoining woodlands. Koala habitat may be lost, and despite that the area is unlikely to be regularly frequented by the species, some offset may be required due to its designation as essential habitat. However, it is questionable that the lost vegetation is regularly inhabited. Impacts therefore are unlikely to affect the abundance or distribution of the species.

5.5.4 Launch Site 1 (Both Cases)

Layout Changes

There have been substantial changes to the proposed layout of launch site 1 although none of these significantly affect the extent of remnant vegetation to be impacted.

Current Status

Certified RE mapping represents the site as comprising predominantly non-remnant (cleared) vegetation with a narrow fringe of mangrove forest (RE 12.1.3) mixed variably with samphire forbland and grassland (RE 12.1.2). Clearing associated with these habitats is provided in Table 23.

No fauna survey work was undertaken in this area during EIS studies. Ecosure (2011) suggested the site provided potential habitat for water mouse to occur within the mangroves, whilst migratory shorebirds and yellow chat may be present.

Supplementary Survey Results

Flora: A broad traverse of the site was undertaken to provide further characterisation of the constituent habitats. The certified RE mapping (DERM, 2009) was found to be consistent with field based observations. The majority of the site has been cleared and comprises a mosaic of exotic grassland, mixed shrubland and disturbed saline sedgeland habitats. Major floristic features of the site are:  Exotic grasslands comprising predominantly Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana), buffel grass (Pennisetum ciliare) and red Natal grass (Melinus repens).

 Broad swales on the site are under tidal influence which has provided an edaphic control on vegetation. This habitat is dominated by salt tolerant native species including Sporobolus virginicus, Bulbostylis barbata. Fimbristylis ferruginea, Suaeda australis, Sesuvium portulacastrum and Sarcocornia quinquefolia. Although possessing native flora

147

values, the lack of contiguity with adjacent mangrove habitats limits the ecological value of the habitat.

 Shrubland habitats comprise a mix of native and exotic species including Acacia disparrima, Casuarina glauca, Vitex trifolia, Myoporum acuminatum and Leucaena leucocepha.

The site presents no specific habitat value to EVNT flora species. It does host an extensive range of exotic weed species, some of which are declared under the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 that have not been recorded in previous EIS documentation. Declared species recorded on the site are:  Rubber vine (Cryptostegia grandiflora), declared class 2.

 Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), declared class 3.

 Lantana (Lantana camara), declared class 3.

 Groundsel bush (Baccharis halmifolia), declared class 2.

Of these species, Brazilian pepper and groundsel bush have not been recorded in previous surveys.

Plate 11. Disturbed native saline grasslands and sedgelands at launch site 1.

Fauna: Targeted surveys for water mouse did not detect any individuals or signs of their presence. A lack of suitably sized hollows and the access road constructed directly adjacent to the mangrove limits nesting opportunities. Being a highly sensitive species, the level of disturbance is further likely to limit the likelihood of their presence.

A pair of glossy black-cockatoo was observed to fly over launch site 1 although they did not utilise any part of the site.

Over a thousand flying foxes flew across the site during the survey with many landing in the mangroves. The species of flying-fox could not be determined although it is possible that grey-headed flying-foxes were within the group.

148

Mudflats adjacent to the mangroves were used to roost by 30 eastern curlew (near threatened, NC Act) and a mix of other shore birds during high tide. Native saline grasslands and sedgelands were highly disturbed, rainbow bee-eater were common as were fox and cane toad. The grasslands and sedgelands did not appear suitable for any EVNT species.

Table 23. Vegetation clearing impacts for the launch site 1. Veg. Management Biodiversity Status Clearing Impacts (ha) Regional Status Based on Revised Ecosystem Mapping 12.1.2 Least concern No concern at present 4.5 12.1.3 Least concern No concern at present 2.01

5.5.5 Curtis Island Site (Both Cases)

Layout Changes

The Arrow LNG plant layout has been modified to the extent that intertidal habitats on the northwestern fringes of Boatshed Point are included within the impact footprint. Minor changes to the impact footprint at the plant site in general include a horizontal directional drill easement (HDD) that connects launch site 1 on the mainland to Curtis Island via Hamilton Point.

EIS Assessment Results

Flora: The EIS (Ecosure, 2011) identified the following REs as being present on the site:  RE 12.3.3, VM Act status endangered.

 RE 12.2.2, VM Act status of concern, EPBC status critically endangered.

 RE 12.3.7, VM Act status least concern.

 RE 12.11.4, VM Act status of concern.

 RE 12.11.6, VM Act status least concern.

 RE 12.11.14, VM Act status of concern.

 RE 12.1.2, VM Act status least concern.

 RE 12.1.3, VM Act status least concern.

Fauna: EIS studies (Ecosure 2011) recognised that habitats on the Curtis Island Site potentially host a range of EVNT species including water mouse, grey headed flying fox, brigalow scaly-foot, square tailed kite, powerful owl, grey goshawk, yellow chat, little tern, black chinned honeyeater and other migratory shorebirds. 3. Essential habitat (RE 12.3.3) for coastal sheathtail bat and koala also occurs within the study area.

Ecosure observed many EVNT species during fauna surveys on the island including grey-headed flying- fox, eastern curlew, beach stone curlew, white-bellied sea-eagle, eastern great egret, rufous fantail,

149

rainbow bee-eater. Three addition EVNT fauna species were observed within 5 km of the study area being grey goshawk, beach stone curlew and powerful owl.

Throughout the site significant feral herbivore activity was observed, including damage caused by pigs and a number of introduced species including horse, brown hare, black rat, red fox dog and cane toad.

Supplementary Survey Results:

Flora: A total of 23 floristic survey sites were recorded by 3D Environmental across the site, east of Hamilton Point, during the supplementary phases of the survey. The major points of note are:  Hillslope woodlands on Curtis Island are mapped entirely as RE 12.11.14 (VM Act status of concern) in the EIS. Consistent recording of structural data indicates that the majority of woodland vegetation on the rocky hillslopes is dominated (almost entirely) by ironbark (Eucalyptus crebra) and is hence most consistent with RE 12.11.7 (VM Act status least concern). RE 12.11.14, recognised by persistent presence of Eucalyptus tereticornis, occurs on the site although is mostly confined to lower colluvial areas below the break of slope.  To the northeast of Boatshed Point, a broad beach ridge was identified. The feature grades from sand in the west to fine gravel in the east. The feature is an obvious Holocene littoral landform, pushed into place by wave action during periods of higher sea level (approximately 5000 years ago). Vegetation on this beach ridge is consistent with RE 12.2.11 (VM Act status least concern). It is currently mapped as RE 12.11.14 in mapping produced by Ecosure (2011).  There are two small patches of vine thicket at the eastern end of the beach ridge, separated by a narrow pinch. Being associated with a littoral landform, these patches are consistent with the critically endangered EPBC-listed ‘Littoral Vine Thicket’ ecological community. They are also consistent in both landform and floristic structure with a small patch of littoral vine thicket identified in the EIS at Hamilton Point. As per EPBC guidelines (TSSC, 2008) the ‘Littoral Vine Thicket’ ecological community can be mapped down to 0.1 ha and the area of the newly identified patches, possessing a combined total of 25 ha fall within the criteria for EPBC significance.

A revision of the Ecosure mapping was undertaken for the specific purpose of differentiating RE 12.11.7 from RE 12.11.14. The revision utilised high resolution stereoscopic digital imagery (1:15 000 Urangan to St Lawrence, 2009) and focused primarily on differentiation based on canopy signature and landform. The boundaries of the littoral vine thicket and beach ridge (RE 12.2.11) were marked on the ground by Ecosure field staff via GPS and converted to shapefiles. The revised mapping is shown in Figure 21 with littoral vine thicket and amended boundaries highlighted. Vegetation clearing impacts within this habitat have also been updated in Table 24.

The supplementary survey confirmed that the floristic sampling of the site undertaken during the EIS was comprehensive. Only a limited number of additional species were identified during the field

150

survey. Vine thicket habitats (RE 12.2.2 and RE 12.11.4) are potential habitat for a number of EVNT species (as derived from Table 11) including three leaved bosistoa and Xylosma ovata. Extensive supplementary searches for EVNT species within vine thicket habitats failed to locate EVNT species on the site.

Plate 12. Littoral vine thicket on beach ridge east of Boatshed Point.

Table 24. Revised clearing impacts for the Curtis Island site (includes LNG Jetty, HDD construction yard and GAWB corridor to north of HDD construction yard). (ha) (ha) Status Status Total*** Yard (ha) Yard (ha) Cleared** Cleared** LNG Jetty (ha)LNG Jetty Areas Currently Areas GAWB Easement Easement GAWB Veg. Management Management Veg. LNG Site (SALNG) HDD Construction Biodiversity Status Status Biodiversity Regional Ecosystem Ecosystem Regional

Least No concern at - 12.1.2 15.60 - - 1.89 17.49 concern present Least No concern at 12.1.3 0.79 - - 1.83 0.14 2.48 concern present 12.2.2** Of concern Endangered - - - - 0** Least No concern at 12.2.11** 0.47 - - - - 0.47** concern present 12.3.3 Endangered Endangered 29.86 - - - - 29.86 Least No concern at 12.3.6 2.93 - 0.17 - 0.48 2.62 concern present 12.11.4 Of concern Of concern 0.64 - 0.03 0.33 0.34 0.66 Least No concern at 12.11.6 72.32 - - - 4.18 68.14 concern present Least No concern at 12.11.7 59.45 - - - - 59.45 concern present 12.11.14 Of concern Of concern 94.61 0.11 1.03 8.75 30.03 74.74 ** Areas cleared following compilation of RE mapping (see Figure 21) . *** = combined clearing across all facilities subtracting areas currently cleared

151

! !

INSET

12.11.6 " É

12.11.6 12.11.7 " " " 12.11.14 12.3.3 " 12.3.3 12.2.2 " " 12.2.2 12.11.14 12.1.2 " " " 12.11.7 "

12.11.7 12.2.11 " " 12.2.2 " 12.2.11" " 12.2.2 "

12.11.4 " 12.11.4 12.11.7 " " 12.2.2 "

12.2.2 " Legend Cleared Area Aug 2012 Regional Ecosystems 12.11.4 12.2.2 Revised vegetation boundaries 12.1.2 12.11.6 12.3.3 3D Environmental Sites 12.1.3 12.11.6/12.11.14 12.3.6

" Quaternary 12.11.14 12.11.7 non-rem

" Secondary 12.11.14/12.11.4 12.2.11

" Tertiary Project Area

N O T E S: Figure 21. Location of flora survey sites 3D Environmental Vegetation Assessment Regional Ecosystems modifiied from Ecosure (2011) and revised RE mapping Curtis Island & Mapping Specialists Arrow LNG Plant Supplementary Report P. O. Box 959 Kenmore, Qld 4069 to the EIS Terrestrial Ecology Study Phone: (07) 3411 9072; (07) 3878 4344 Mobile: 0447 822 119; 0409 426 916 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Client Coffey Environments www.3denvironmental.com.au File Path Date Kilometres Scale 1:23,419 Drawn By DG Checked DS 29/11/2012 A4 C:\Users\Owner\Documents\Clients\3D Environmental\Curtis\3d_Curtis_Fig21_A4L.mxd

! !

Fauna: Targeted surveying for water mouse at three sites, did not result in the capture of any individuals although active searching revealed indications that the species is present within habitats in the Curtis Island Site. An active nesting hollow and abandoned hollow were found to the east and to the west of Boatshed Point respectively. A third survey site in the northeastern portion of the study area had all the required habitat features for water mouse although no evidence for the species was found. It should however be assumed that water mouse occurs throughout all mangrove habitats on the site. Other EVNT and migratory species observed on the Curtis Island site are eastern curlew, rainbow bee-eater and white-bellied sea-eagle.

There is a high likelihood that many of the EVNT species listed in Ecosure (2011) are present within the Curtis Island site although the supplementary assessment of habitat suitability and the likelihood of occurrence differs in some species, as previously detailed in Table 12. Species considered likely to occur include grey-headed flying-fox, powerful owl, grey goshawk, , black-necked stork, square-tailed kite, and a number of migratory bird species.

5.5.6 TWAF 7 (Base Case)

Layout Changes

The site layout is essentially unchanged.

Current Status

Certified RE mapping represents the site as comprising non-remnant (cleared) vegetation although fringed with estuarine habitats RE 12.1.2 and RE 12.1.3.

Supplementary Survey Results

Field survey confirmed that TWAF 7 was highly degraded, comprising exotic grassland dominated by Rhodes grass and thatch grass. The site has been revegetated with native shrubs on the steep outer margins of the site although possesses only limited habitat value for native species. The site presents limited habitat value for EVNT fauna species although eastern curlew (near threatened NC Act) were observed on the estuarine flats that fringed the site.

5.6 Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

EIS studies focused on groundwater resources in the project area (Coffey Geotechnics, 2011) identified the following aquifer types within the study area;

 Unconfined aquifers, typically associated with shallow alluvial or estuarine deposits.

 Confined aquifers, typically occurring in below fractured basement rock with low permeability.

 Semi-confined aquifers, associated with deep fracture zones or transition zones between fresh and weathered bedrock.

153

Being located at depth in bedrock, confined and semi-confined aquifers will have little influence on terrestrial ecology at the project site. Unconfined shallow aquifers have a much greater influence on terrestrial ecology, having levels which are often at least periodically in the root zone of terrestrial vegetation. Shallow unconfined aquifers may be associated with alluvial flats at the Curtis Island LNG plant site, as well as broad coastal alluvial plains as found at TWAF 8, the mainland tunnel launch site, launch site 1, TWAF 7 and the Red Rover Road site to a lesser degree.

Ecosystems that rely on groundwater for some or all of their water requirements are classified as Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (Geoscience Australia, 2011). Six groundwater dependent ecosystems types have been identified in Australia (Environment Australia, 2001) although only four of these potentially occur within the project site being:

 Terrestrial vegetation – vegetation communities and dependent fauna that have seasonal or episodic dependence on groundwater.

 River base flow systems – aquatic and riparian ecosystems that exist in or adjacent to streams that are fed by groundwater base flow.

 Wetlands – aquatic communities and fringing vegetation dependent on groundwater fed lakes and wetlands.

 Estuarine and near-shore marine ecosystems – coastal, estuarine and near shore marine plant and animal communities whose ecological function has some dependence on discharge of groundwater.

The occurrence of such ecosystems are discussed briefly in the following section

1. Terrestrial vegetation: Well developed flood plain woodlands are associated with alluvial plains at the Curtis Island site, TWAF 8 and the mainland tunnel launch site. These sites are characterised by forest red gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis) and an associated mix of deep rooted eucalypt species that comprise RE 12.3.3, RE 12.3.11 and RE 11.3.4. These habitats would invariably have root systems that at least seasonally intercept shallow groundwater aquifers and groundwater tables may provide an important buffer for maintaining the health and integrity of floodplain habitats during periods of prolonged drought.

2. River base flow systems: Groundwater may provide base flow to streams during periods of limited rainfall (Brierley et al, 2005). Hence shallow groundwater tables may provide an important buffer for maintaining riparian forest during periods of prolonged drought. Draw down may impact a range of ecosystems although the most at risk in the project area include riparian woodlands (RE 11.3.25 and RE 12.3.7). On Curtis Island at the LNG plant site, as well as TWAF 8, the major watercourses are intermitted to ephemeral watercourses, carrying water only during wetter months or post seasonal rainfall events and groundwater would provide little input to stream baseflow. Hence, groundwater has only a limited influence on stream discharge. Groundwater may however sustain riparian vegetation during extended drought periods and hence 154

excessive and prolonged drawdown will potentially impact the health of riparian habitats, even in intermittent streams. At the Red Rover Road site, streams were noted to be of perennial nature, although it is not known to what extent groundwater contributes to stream flow. Ground water drawdown in this location may result in senescence of riparian vegetation as well as choking of watercourses with exotic grasses and other weeds.

3. Wetlands: No wetland habitats, other than riparian or estuarine wetlands are recognised within the project area.

4. Estuarine wetlands: Shallow groundwater tables associated with coastal alluvial plains will often discharge on the interface with littoral habitats. Groundwater discharge flushes salt and prevents excessive saline accumulation (hyper-salinity). Hence areas of groundwater discharge may be marked by habitat dominated by transitional forbs, grasses and shrubs including salt couch and sedges such as Bulbostylis barbata and Fimbristylis ferruginea. The narrow fringe of Melaleuca nervosa shrubland on the interface between terrestrial and estuarine habitats (a variant of RE 12.1.2) at the mainland tunnel launch site provides example of a habitat that may be regulated by shallow groundwater discharge. Depletion of shallow groundwater aquifers will ultimately lead to senescence of these shrubland habitats due to an inability of the species to adapt to increasing soil salinity.

Plate 13. Melaleuca nervosa shrubland on estuarine interface at mainland tunnel launch site.

Management of Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Detailed planning for the management of shallow aquifers is required to minimise drawdown and minimise impact to habitats dependent on groundwater during extended drought. Some general principles that might be employed to mitigate impacts are:

 Identify groundwater dependent ecosystems on the ground to assist planning.  Monitor groundwater levels and levels of groundwater salinity.

155

 Avoid over-extraction of groundwater resources.  Limit loss of deep rooted vegetation as far as practical.  Avoid building dams at locations where the water table is high.

Significance of Impacts to Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

It should be noted that on Curtis Island, all vegetation that is potentially sustained by shallow groundwater tables will be cleared and hence any water table drawdown will not have an impact on remaining vegetation.

At the mainland tunnel launch site, trenching and excavation associated with tunnel construction may have a localised impact on groundwater levels on the margins of the trench. Due to the localised nature of impact, and the predominantly ‘dry’ tunnelling methods, it is not expected that this will have any significant impact on deep rooted vegetation and groundwater levels will stabilise once excavated void are filled or re-instated during operational phases. The narrow fringe of melaleuca dominant woodland on the littoral margins may also be subject to localised impacts of groundwater drawdown. It must however be noted that this habitat is already senescent and is a component of a regionally extensive ecosystem (RE 12.1,1) that is of no particular conservation significance. Hence the significance of impact to groundwater dependent ecosystems is considered negligible.

Similarly, at the Red Rover Road site and TWAF 8, vegetation clearing associated with construction activities will not result in drawdown of shallow water tables. Hence no impact to retained vegetation resulting from groundwater drawdown is expected.

156

6.0 Conclusions and Future Works

Flora: A total of 38 flora species have been subject to supplementary ‘likelihood of occurrence’ assessment. Of these, 22 were addressed in the EIS assessment by Ecosure (2011) with a further 16 not considered in the EIS that were identified as potentially occurring in the project area through further desktop assessment. Based on comprehensive field survey, including both the EIS phase surveys and supplementary EIS phases of assessment, it is considered that no significant flora species listed under state or federal legislation is likely to occur within the project area. This supports EIS findings and no impact to significant flora species is expected in association with the Arrow LNG Plant.

A number of inconsistencies were noted in the assessment of RE and ecological community mapping, both on mainland sites and Curtis Island which have resulted in a number of modifications to project vegetation mapping. This includes:

 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 the 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.  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 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 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.

Whilst a number of groundwater dependent (or partially dependent) ecosystems have been identified as occurring on the site, the impact to these ecosystems where retained is considered insignificant. Habitat offsets may however be required where these correspond to regional ecosystems requiring offset under relevant state or federal policy.

Fauna: This study has filled a number of areas where additional information was required relating to individual EVNT impact assessment and detailed water mouse surveys. However, a number of areas require further investigation and/or survey effort to confirm assessments made in this report, and to fine tune requirements for mitigation during construction as well as clarify requirements for 157

habitat offset f or some species. Survey works are planned for early 2013 and will focus on gathering additional information as detailed below:

 No substantial survey work has been undertaken during the warmer summer months and, in particular, during the wet season. This is likely to have lead to an under representation of vertebrate species within previous assessments. Furthermore, no detailed trapping effort, with the exception of water mouse work, has been undertaken to date. Several trapping methods ( e.g., harp trapping, pitfall traps, Elliot traps, funnel traps) are necessary to detect cryptic fauna species including a number EVNT species (e.g., brigalow scaly-foot).

 Accordingly, future field surveys should be undertaken between November 2012 to April 2013, with a preference for the post-Christmas wet season. Surveys should include trapping methods and survey methodology consistent with (Eyre et al., 2012). Selected targeted methods can be included in the summer 2012/2013 baseline survey to increase survey rigor, even though previous works may have been adequate. Such methods could include:

o Call playback for powerful owl,

o Estimations of koala foraging resources (as per federal guidelines; DSEWPaC, 2012) and targeted searches for koala activity (i.e., scratches and scats) at woodland behind the mainland tunnel launch site along the pipeline alignment.

o Bat survey, targeting specifically habitats of little pied bat at TWAF 8, Red Rover Road site and mainland tunnel launch site. Bat survey may include harp trapping and anabat survey and could be conducted in conjunction with general wet season surveys.

Once completed, data collected during the field surveys described above, should be used to update the information provided in this report to provide a comprehensive field based assessment for all species that have potential to be significantly impacted by the project.

158

7.0 References

Accad, A; Neldner, V.J; Wilson, B. A; and Niehus, R.E. (2012) Remnant Vegetation in Queensland. Analysis of remnant vegetation 1997-2009, including regional ecosystem information. (Queensland Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts: Brisbane). Abbott, A., Taylor, B., and P. Lloyd. (2011). GLNG Project Curtis Island LNG Facility: Water mouse Survey and Habitat Assessment. Report prepared by BAAM for URS.

Australia Pacific LNG (APLNG) (2010). Environmental Impact Statement - Volume 4: LNG Facility. Chapter 8: Terrestrial Ecology

Australia's Virtual Herbarium (2012). http://avh.chah.org.au.

Ball, D., Wake, J., McKillup, S. (2006). Point discharge of storm water runoff into a landward mangrove community: initial investigations indicate a negative effect on keystone species (mangrove crabs, Family: Grapsidae). New Zealand Marine Sciences Society Review. 47:25. Wellington, NZ, NZMSS.

Bamber, S.D., Depledge, M.H. (1997). Evaluation of changes in the adaptive physiology of shore crabs (Carcinus maenus) as an indicator of pollution in estuarine environments. Marine Biology, Vol. 192, No. 4, pp. 667-672.

Beruldsen G. (2003). Australian Birds their nests and eggs, G. Beruldsen, QLD.

Burton, A. M. and Olsen, P. (2000). Niche partitioning by two sympatric goshawks in the Australian Wet Tropics: ranging behaviour. Emu 100, 216-226. Cameron, M. (2006a). Distribution and cone production in Allocasuarina diminuta and A. gymnanthera (Casuarinaceae) in central New South Wales. Rangeland Journal 28.153-161.

Cameron, M. (2006b). Nesting habitat of the Glossy Black-Cockatoo in central New South Wales. Biological Conservation 127. 402-410.

Cameron, M. (2009). The influence of climate on Glossy Black-Cockatoo reproduction. Pacific Conservation Biology 15. 65-71.

Cameron, M. and Cunningham, R. B. (2006). Habitat selection and multiple spatial scales by foraging Glossy Black-Cockatoos. Austral Ecology 31. 597-607.

Caneris, A. and B. Taylor. (2009). Curtis Island Water mouse, Powerful Owl, and Wading Bird Investigations. Report prepared by BAAM for URS.

Chapman, T. F. (2007). Foods of the Glossy Black-Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami. Australian Field Ornithology 24. 30-36.

Chapman, T. F. and Paton, D. C. (2006). Aspects of Drooping Sheoaks (Allocasuarina verticillata) that influence Glossy Black-Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami halmaturinus) foraging on Kangaroo Island. Emu 106. 163–168.

159

Churchill, S. (1998). Australian bats. Reed New Holland, Sydney. pp121-122.

Clout, M (1989). Foraging behaviour of Glossy Black-Cockatoos. Australian Wildlife Research. 16. 467-473.

Coffey Geotechnics (2011). Arrow LNG Plant: Groundwater Impact Assessment.

Coffey Environments (2011). Arrow LNG Plant: Matters of National Environmental Significance.

Crowley, GM and Garnett, ST (2001). Food value and tree selection by Glossy Black-Cockatoos Calyptorhynchus lathami. Austral Ecology 26. 116-126.

Debus, S. (1998). The birds of prey of Australia: a field guide to Australian raptors. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. pp26-30.

Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) (2004). Threatened Biodiversity Survey and Assessment: Guidelines for Development and Activities. Working Draft 2004. NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, Sydney.

Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) (2011a). Policy for Vegetation Management Offsets- Version 3. Queensland Government. Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) (2011b). Queensland Biodiversity Offsets Policy (Version 1). Queensland Government. Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) (2011c). Ecological Equivalence Methodology Guideline, Policy for Vegetation Management Offsets, Queensland Biodiversity Offsets Policy. Queensland Government.

Department of Environment and Resource Management (2010). Queensland Wetland Mapping and Classification for Queensland. Version 1.3 – February 2009. Department of Environment and Resource Management, Queensland. Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) (2009a). National recovery plan for the Water mouse (false water rat) Xeromys myoides. Report to Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. Brisbane: Department of the Environment and Resource Management.

Department of Environmental Resource Management (DERM) (2009a). Regional Ecosystem Digital Data, Version 6.0. Queensland Herbarium, Brisbane. Department of Environmental Resource Management (DERM) (2009b). High Value Regrowth Vegetation _Digital Data. Queensland Herbarium, Brisbane. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2010). Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened bats. Commonwealth of Australia.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2011). Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened mammals. Commonwealth of Australia.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). EPBC Act Protected Matters Report. Online at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-

160

bin/erin/ert/ert_dispatch.pl?loc_type=coordinate&search=Search&report=epbc. Accessed 20 August 2012. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012).Geophaps scripta scripta in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra. Available from:http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:05:02 +1100.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2011). EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy . Australian Government, Canberra. Dique, D.S., Thompson, J., Preece, H.J., de Villiers, D.L., Carrick, F.N. (2003). Dispersal patterns in a regional koala population in south east Queensland, Wildlife Research, 30, 281-290.

Dorfman, E. J., Lamont, A. and Dickman, C. R. (2001). Foraging behaviour and success of Black- necked Storks (Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus) in Australia: implications for management. Emu 101. 145-149.

Downes, SJ, Handasyde, KA and Elgar, MA (1997). The use of corridors by mammals in fragmented Australian eucalypt forests. Conservation Biology 11. 718-725.

Debus, S.J.S. and Chafer, C.J (1994) The Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) in New South Wales. Australian Birds (supplement) 28: 21-39.

Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts [DEWHA] (2009). Matters of National Environmental Significance: Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1.

Dyck, S.V., Stratham, R. (2008). The Mammals of Australia, Third Ed, Reed New Holland, Sydney, Australia.

Ecosure (2011). Arrow LNG Plant: Terrestrial Ecology Impact Assessment.

Environment Australia (2001). Environmental Water Requirements to Maintain Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems. Environmental flows initiative technical report No.2. Australian Government, Canberra.

Ellis, W.A.H., Melzer, A., Carrick, F.N., Hasegawa, M. (2002). Tree use, diet and home range of the Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) at Blair Athol, central Queensland. Wildlife Research. 29:303- 311.

Environmental and Heritage Protection (Queensland Department of) (EHP) (2012). Regional Ecosystem Description Database (REDD). Version 7.0. Updated August 2012.

Environmental and Heritage Protection (Queensland Department of) (EHP) (2012). HERBRECS data Extract August, 2012.

Environmental Protection Agency (2008b). Biodiversity Planning Assessment–Brigalow Belt. Version 1.3. Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane. Environmental Protection Agency (2003). BPA BRB South Fauna Expert Panel in Brigalow Belt South Biodiversity Planning Assessment. EPA. Brisbane.

161

Eyre, T, Barrett, D and Venz, M (1997). Systematic vertebrate fauna survey project, stage 1 – vertebrate fauna survey in the SEQ bioregion. Department of Natural Resources, Brisbane.

Eyre, T.J., Ferguson, D.J., Hourigan, C.L., Smith, G.C., Mathieson, M.T., Kelly, A.L., Venz, M.F., Hogan, L.D. (2012). Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Survey Assessment Guidelines for Queensland. Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, Queensland Government, Brisbane.

Ford, J. (1986). Avian hybridization and allopatry in the region of the Einasleigh Uplands and Burdekin-Lund Divide, north-eastern Queensland. Emu 86. 87-110.

Frith, H. J. (1982). Pigeons and doves of Australia. Rigby, Adelaide. pp253-259.

Garnett, ST and Crowley, GM (2000). The action plan for Australian birds. Environment Australia, Canberra.

Garnett, ST, Pedler, LP and Crowley, GM (1999). The nesting biology of the Glossy Black Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami on Kangaroo Island. Emu 99. 262-279.

Grosenbaugh, L. R. (1952). Plotless timber estimates—new, fast, easy. J. Forest. 50: 32-37.

Brierley, G. J. and Fryers, K (2005). Geomorphology and River Management. Blackwell Publishing PP. 35 – 38.

Geoscience Australia (2011). Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems. Available at http://www.ga.gov.au/groundwater/understanding-groundwater-resource

GHD (2012). New Gladstone Coal Terminal: Preliminary Ecological Surveys of Proposed Lot 101. Report prepared for 3TL Ltd by GHD.

Hall, L. S. and Richards, G. C. (1979). Bats of eastern Australia, Queensland Museum Booklet No. 12. Queensland Museum, Brisbane.

Higgins, P. J. and Davies, S. J. J. F. (eds) (1996). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic birds, Vol 3, Snipe to pigeons. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. pp927-932.

Higgins, PJ (ed.) (1999). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic birds, Vol 4, Parrots to dollarbird. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Pp52-65.

Hindell, M.A., Handasyde, K.A. Lee, A.K. (1985). Tree species selection by free-fanging Koala populations. Victoria. Australian Wildlife Research. 12:137-144.

Hollands, D. (2008). Owls, frogmouths and nightjars of Australia. Blooming Books, Melbourne.

James, J.W. (1980). Food of the Powerful Owl Ninox strenua in south-eastern Queensland. Emu 80 34–35.

Johnstone, R. E. and Storr, G. M. (1998). Handbook of Western Australian Birds. Volume 1: Non- passerines (Emu to Dollarbird). Western Australian Museum, Perth. pp125-126.

Kavanagh, R. (2002) Comparative diets of the Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua), Sooty Owl (Tyto tenebricosa) and Masked Owl (Tyto novaehollandiae) in southeastern Australia, In Ecology 162

and Conservation of Owls Eds. Newton I., Kavanagh R., Olsen J., Taylor I., CSIRO Publishing, Australia.

Kutt, A. S., Hannah, D. S. and Thurgate, N. Y. (2003). Distribution, habitat and conservation status of Paradelma orientalis Gunther 1876 (Lacertilia: Pygopodidae). Australian Zoologist 32. 261- 264.

Lindenmayer, D. and Burgman (2005). Practical Conservation Ecology. CSIRO Publishing, Canberra.

Lindenmayer, D. B. and Fischer, J. (2 006). “Habitat Fragmentation and Landscape Change. An Ecological and Conservation Synthesis. CSIRO Publishing, Canberra.

Marchant, S and Higgins, PJ (eds) (1990). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic birds, Vol 1, Ratites to Ducks, Part B Australian pelican to ducks. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. pp 1064-1070.

Marchant, S and Higgins, PJ (eds) (1993). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic birds, Vol 2, Raptors to lapwings. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Martin, R., Handasyde, K. (1999). The Koala: Natural history, conservation and management. Sydney, NSW: UNSW Press.

Martin, R.W. (1985). Overbrowsing, and decline of a population of the Koala, Phascolarctos cinereus, in Victoria.1. Food preference and food tree defoliation. Australian Wildlife Research. 12:355-365.

McLeod, A. (2008). LNG Facility Curtis Island: Terrestrial Fauna Report (final). Report prepared for Santos Limited by URS.

McNabb, E. G. (1996). 'Observations on the biology of the Powerful Owl Ninox strenua in southern Victoria' . Australian Bird Watcher 16: 267-295.

Melzer, A., Carrick, F., Menkhorst, P., Lunney, D., John, B.S., (2000). Overview, critical assessment, and conservation implications of Koala distribution and abundance. Conservation Biology. 14:619-628.

Menkhorst, P. Knight, F. (2001). A field guide to the mammals of Australia, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne.

Menkhorst, P. W. and Knight, F. (2004). A field guide to the mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Moore, B.D., Foley, W.J., (2000). A review of feeding and diet selection in Koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus). Australian Journal of Zoology. 48:317-333.

Munks, S.A., Corkrey, R., Foley, W.J. (1996). Characteristics of arboreal marsupial habitat in the semi-arid woodlands of northern Queensland. Wildlife Research. 23:185-195.

163

Neldner, V. J., Wilson, B. A., Thompson, E. J. and Dilleward, H. A. (2005). Methodology for Survey and Mapping of Regional Ecosystems and Vegetation Communities in Queensland. Version 3.1. Updated September 2005. Queensland Herbarium, Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane.

Neldner,V. J, Kirkwood A, B. and Collyer B.S (2004). Optimum time for sampling floristic diversity in tropical eucalypt woodlands of northern Queensland. Rangelands Journal No.26 (2) 190 – 203. Olsen, P. (1998). Birds Australia conservation statement No. 2 Australia’s raptors: Diurnal birds of prey and owls, supplement to Wingspan, Vol. 8, no. 3.

Olsen, P. D. and Olsen, J. (1985). A natural hybridization of the Brown Goshawk Accipiter fasciatus and Grey Goshawk Accipiter novaehollandiae in Australia, and a comparison of the two species. Emu 85. 250-257.

Pavey, C.R. (1994). Records of the food of the Powerful Owl Ninox strenua from Queensland. Sunbird 24, 30–39.

Pepper, J.W. (2000). Foraging ecology of the South Australian Glossy Black-Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami halmaturinus). Austral Ecology. 25:16-24.

Pizzey, G and Knight, F (2003). The field guide to the birds of Australia. HarperCollins, Sydney. Pp 274.

Sandpiper Ecological Surveys (2009). Queensland Gas Company LNG Project Curtis Island Gladstone ~ Supplementary surveys for powerful owl and migratory shorebirds.

Schulz, M. and Eyre, T. J. (1997). New distribution and habitat data for the Pygopodid, Paradelma orientalis (Gunther 1876). Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 42. 212.

Seebeck, J. H. (1976). The diet of the powerful owl Ninox strenua in Western Victoria. Emu 76, 167–170.

Shea, G.M. (1987). Notes on the biology of Paradelma orientalis. Herpetofauna (Sydney) 17 (1- 2):5-6.

Stone, E. L., Jones, G. and Harris, S. (2012). Conserving energy at a cost to biodiversity? Impacts of LED lighting on bats Issue Global Change. Biology, Vol. 18, Iss 8, pages 2458–246.

Sullivan, B.J., Baxter, G.S., Lisle, A.T. (2003). Low-density Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) populations in the mulgalands of south-west Queensland. III. Broad-scale patterns of habitat use. Wildlife Research. 30:583-591.

Sundar, K. S. G., Clancy, G. P. and Shah, N. (2006). Factors affecting the formation of flocks of unusual size and composition in Black-necked Storks (Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus) in Australian and India. Emu 106. 253-258.

164

Tarlinton, R., Meers, J., Hanger, J., Young, P. (2005). Real-time reverse transcriptase PCR for the endogenous koala retrovirus reveals an association between plasma viral load and neoplastic disease in koalas. Journal of General Virology. 86:783-787.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2012). Commonwealth Listing Advice on Lowland Rainforest of Sub-tropical Australia. of the Queensland Central Highlands and the northern Fitzroy Basin Department of the Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Australian Government, Canberra. Remul, P. R. (2000). Breeding, feeding and arboreality in Paradelma orientalis: A poorly known, vulnerable pygopodid from Queensland, Australia. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 45. 599-609.

URS (2009). Final Report: Curtis Island Facility Flora Report.

Van Dyck, S. and E. Durbidge (1992). A nesting community of false water rats (Xeromys myoides on the Myora sedgelands, North Stradbroke Island. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum. 32:374.

Van Dyck, S. (1996). Xeromys myoides Thomas, 1889, (Rodenta: Muridae) in mangrove communities of North Stradbroke Island, south-east Queensland. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 42: 337–366.

Van Dyck, S. And Strahan, R. (2008). The Mammals of Australia. New Holland Publishers, Sydney. Pp 539-540.

Van Dyck, S., Gynther, I. (2003). 'Nesting strategies of the Water mouse Xeromys myoides in southeast Queensland'. In: Memoirs of the Queensland Museum. 49 part 1:453-479.

Van Dyck, S., Janetzki, S., Gynther, I. (2003). 'Artificial Nesting Mounds for the Water mouse, Xeromys myoides'. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, vol. 49 iss 1:480.

Webster, A, Cooke, R, Jameson, G and Wallis, R (1999). ‘Diet, roosts and breeding of Powerful Owls Ninox strenua in a disturbed, urban environment: A case for cannibalism? Or a case of infanticide?’ Emu, 99: 80-83.

Worley Parsons (2011). SEWPAC Pre-clearance Survey Report – Curtis Island LNG Facility Site. Unpublished report to APLNG.

Zimmerman, L., E. Thurman, and K. Bastian (2000). Detection of persistent organic pollutants in the Mississippi Delta using semi-permeable membrane devices. The Science of the Total Environment. 248:169-179.

165

166

8.0 Appendices

167

168

Appendix A: Floristic Site Data

169

Table A1. Survey floristic site data.

Site Site Name Site # Site ID Lat Long Structure-Floristics Summary Geology-Landform RE Level Curtis Island 22 S GC22 23.79653 151.2245 Semi-evergreen notophyll Gravel beach ridge 12.2.2 LNG plant site microphyll vine thicket of Pouteria sericea, Pleigymum timorense, Cupaniopsis anacardioides and Drypetes deplachei. Curtis Island 23 Q GC23 23.79388 151.224 Semi-evergreen notophyll Gravel beach ridge 12.2.2 LNG plant site microphyll vine thicket of Drypetes deplanchei, Aidia racemosa, Pouteria sericea, Alectryon connatus, Cupaniopsis anacardioides, Capparis arborea, and Dinosperma erythrococca. Curtis Island 24 Q GC24 23.7932 151.2237 Semi-evergreen notophyll Metamorphic footslope 12.11.4 LNG plant site microphyll vine thicket of Drypetes deplanchei, Aidia racemosa, Pouteria sericea, Cupaniopsis anacardioides, and Capparis arborea. Curtis Island 25 Q GC25 23.79166 151.2317 Semi-evergreen notophyll Metamorphic hillslope 12.11.4 LNG plant site microphyll vine thicket of Harpullia pendula, Cupaniopsis anacardioides, Pleiogynum timorense, Cryptocarya triplinervis and Dinosperma eryhtrococca. Curtis Island 26 Q GC26 23.79299 151.2326 Woodland of Eucalyptus crebra with Metamorphic hillcrest. 12.11.7 LNG plant site a shrubby vine thicket understorey. Curtis Island 27 S GC27 23.7864 151.2328 Woodland of Corymbia tessellaris Parallel beach ridge. 12.2.11 LNG plant site and associated Eucalyptus tereticornis with a Petalostigma pubescens dominant understorey.

171

Site Site Name Site # Site ID Lat Long Structure-Floristics Summary Geology-Landform RE Level Curtis Island 28 Q GC28 23.7856 151.2346 Semi-evergreen notophyll Parallel beach ridge 12.2.2 LNG plant site microphyll vine thicket of Diospyros formed on gravel. geminata, Drypetes deplanchei, Pouteria sericea, Euroschinus falcatus and Pleiogynum timorense. Curtis Island 29 Q GC29 23.78555 151.2342 Semi-evergreen notophyll Parallel beach ridge 12.2.2 LNG plant site microphyll vine thicket of Drypetes formed on gravel. deplanchei, Pouteria sericea, and Pleiogynum timorense. Curtis Island 30 Q GC30 23.78562 151.2329 Woodland of Eucalyptus crebra, Gentle metamorphic rises. 12.11.14 LNG plant site Eucalyptus tereticornis and Eucalyptus exserta. Curtis Island 31 Q GC31 23.78351 151.2348 Woodland of Eucalyptus crebra with Metamorphic hillcrest. 12.11.7 LNG plant site a shrub layer of Acacia julifera. Curtis Island 32 Q GC32 23.7767 151.2347 Woodland of Eucalyptus Coastal alluvial plain. 12.3.3 LNG plant site tereticornis, Lophostemon suaveolens and associated Eucalyptus crebra. Curtis Island 33 Q GC33 23.77831 151.2355 Saline grassland of Sporobolus Landward margin of 12.1.2 LNG plant site virginicus. marine plain. Curtis Island 34 T GC34 23.77511 151.2369 Woodland of Eucalyptus crebra, Metamorphic hillslopes. 12.11.7 LNG plant site with associated Corymbia clarksoniana. Second tree layer of Corymbia clarksoniana, Eucalyptus crebra and Corymbia tessellaris. Curtis Island 35 T GC35 23.7791 151.2378 Woodland of Eucalyptus crebra. Metamorphic hillslopes. 12.11.7 LNG plant site Curtis Island 36 T GC36 23.77545 151.2348 Woodland of Eucalyptus crebra Metamorphic footslopes. 12.11.14 LNG plant site dominant with subdominant Eucalyptus tereticornis and associated Eucalyptus exserta. Curtis Island 37 T GC37 23.77481 151.2327 Woodland of Corymbia citriodora Lower metamorphic 12.11.6 LNG plant site with sub dominant Eucalyptus hillsopes. crebra and associated Eucalyptus exserta.

172

Site Site Name Site # Site ID Lat Long Structure-Floristics Summary Geology-Landform RE Level Curtis Island 38 T GC38 23.7764 151.2286 Woodland of Eucalyptus tereticornis Alluvial plain (with narrow 12.3.3 LNG plant site with associated Lophostemon incised ephemeral suaveolens and Corymbia drainage channel clarksoniana. dissecting metamorphics) Curtis Island 39 T GC39 23.77206 151.2262 Woodland of Corymbia citriodora Colluvial fan from 12.11.6 LNG plant site with associated Eucalyptus crebra. metamorphics merging with alluvial plain. Curtis Island 40 Q GC40 23.77221 151.2248 Woodland of Corymbia citriodora Gentle rises on colluvium 12.11.6 LNG plant site with sub dominant Eucalyptus from metamorphics. crebra. Curtis Island 41 Q GC41 23.78002 151.2266 Woodland of Eucalyptus crebra with Gentle rises on colluvium 12.11.7 LNG plant site associated Corymbia clarksoniana. from metamorphics. Curtis Island 42 T GC42 23.78543 151.2309 Woodland of Eucalyptus crebra with Gentle metamorphic rises. 12.11.7 LNG plant site associated Eucalyptus exserta. Curtis Island 43 T GC43 23.78448 151.233 Woodland of Eucalyptus crebra with Metamorphic hillslope 12.11.7 LNG plant site sub dominant Eucalyptus exserta and a sparse shrub layer of Acacia sp. and Pogonolobus reticulatus. Curtis Island 44 T GC44 23.4853 151.2327 Woodland of Eucalyptus crebra with Gentle rises on colluvium 12.11.4 LNG plant site sub dominant Eucalyptus from metamorphics. tereticornis and Eucalyptus exserta. Sparse second tree layer of Eucalyptus exserta and Eucalyptus tereticornis. Curtis Island 45 T GC45 23.78363 151.2356 Woodland of Eucalyptus crebra and Steep lower metamorphic 12.11.7 LNG plant site Corymbia clarksoniana with hillslopes. associated Eucalyptus exserta. Mainland tunnel 8 S GC08 23.82152 151.1636 Woodland of Eucalyptus tereticornis Coastal alluvial plain 12.3.3 launch site with Eucalyptus crebra and a sparse second tree layer of Eucalyptus crebra, Lophostemon suaveolens and Eucalyptus tereticornis.

173

Site Site Name Site # Site ID Lat Long Structure-Floristics Summary Geology-Landform RE Level Mainland tunnel 9 Q GC09 23.82049 151.166 Grassland - forbland of Sporobolus Marine clay plain 12.1.2 launch site virginicus with Sarcocornia quinqueflora, Sesuvium portlucastrum, Fimbristylis polytrichoides, Ereochloa procera, Epaltes australe and Suedea australis. Mainland tunnel 10 Q GC10 23.82221 151.1657 Grassland of Sporobolus virginicus Marine clay plain 12.1.2 launch site with Fimbristylis ferruginea, Ereochloa procera and Eremophila debils. Mainland tunnel 11 S GC11 23.82182 151.1654 Tall shrubland of Melaleuca nervosa Outer margin of coastal 12.3.3 launch site with occasional emergents of alluvial plain adjoiing Eucalyptus tereticornis and a marine clay plain groundcover of Sporobolus virginicus, Ereochloa procera, Fimbristylis ferruginea and Epaltes australis. Mainland tunnel 12 S GC12 23.82373 151.1649 Woodland of Eucalyptus tereticornis Coastal alluvial plain 12.3.3 launch site with a second tree layer of Lophostemon suaveolens, Melaleuca nervosa, Petalostigma pubescens and Eucalyptus tereticornis. Mainland tunnel 13 S GC13 23.82315 151.1617 Woodland of Eucalyptus tereticornis Coastal alluvial plain 12.3.11 launch site with Eucalyptus crebra and Lophostemon suaveolens. Mainland tunnel 14 Q GC14 23.82677 151.1664 Woodland of Eucalyptus tereticornis Coastal alluvial plain 12.3.3 launch site with Lophostemon suaveolens, Angophora sp. and Eucalyptus exserta. Mainland tunnel 15 Q GC15 23.82978 151.1695 Grassland of Sporobolus virginicus Marine clay plain 12.1.2 launch site with Ereochloa procera, Epaltes australis, Hypericum gramineum, Sesuvium portulacastrum, Fimbristylis polytrochoides and F. ferruginea.

174

Site Site Name Site # Site ID Lat Long Structure-Floristics Summary Geology-Landform RE Level Red Rover Road 1 S GC01 23.86334 151.2136 Woodland of Corymbia citriodora Metamorphics 12.11.6 site with sub dominant Eucalyptus crebra and associated C. intermedia and Lophostemon suaveolens. Red Rover Road 2 Q GC02 23.86144 151.2117 Tall mangrove shrubland of Estuarine sediments 12.1.3 site Lumnitzera racemosa with Sporobolous virginicus dominated groundcover. Red Rover Road 3 S GC03 23.86131 151.2107 Woodland of Corymbia citriodora Metamorphics 12.11.6 site with sub dominant Eucalyptus exserta and associated E. moluccana and Eucalyptus crebra. Red Rover Road 4 Q GC04 23.86249 151.2083 Woodland of Lophostemon Narrow incised drainage 12.11.6 site suaveolens and Corymbia channel dissecting citriodora. metamorphics Red Rover Road 5 Q GC05 23.86197 151.2067 Woodland of Corymbia citriodora Metamorphics 12.11.6 site with sub dominant Eucalyptus exserta. Red Rover Road 6 Q GC06 23.8632 151.2091 Woodland of Corymbia citriodora Metamorphics 12.11.6 site with sub dominant Eucalyptus crebra and Eucalyptus exserta. Red Rover Road 7 Q GC07 23.86371 151.2115 Woodland of Eucalyptus tereticornis Narrow incised drainage 12.3.7 site with Melaleuca fluviatilis and channel dissecting Lophostemon suaveolens. metamorphics Red Rover Road 16 S GC16 23.859 151.2115 Woodland of Eucalyptus Colluvium from 12.11.6 site moluccana, Eucalyptus crebra and metamorphics Corymbia citriodora. Red Rover Road 17 S GC17 23.86293 151.2121 Riparian open forest of Melaleuca Alluvial terrace (narrow 12.3.7 site fluviatilis with associated Eucalyptus incised drainage channel exserta and Eucalyptus tereticornis. dissecting metamorphics) TWAF 7 18 Q GC18 23.8522 151.2363 Non remnant exotic grassland and Landfill over marine clays Non-R rehabilitation shrubland TWAF 8 19 Q GC19 23.78761 151.112 Regrowth open woodland of Alluvial outwash plain Non-R Eucalyptus tereticornis and Corymbia tessellaris.

175

Site Site Name Site # Site ID Lat Long Structure-Floristics Summary Geology-Landform RE Level TWAF 8 20 Q GC20 23.78647 151.1121 Riparian open forest of Melaleuca Alluvial channels 11.3.25 fluviatilis with vine thicket species. TWAF 8 21 S GC21 23.78486 151.1122 Woodland of Eucalyptus tereticornis Alluvial outwash plain 11.3.4 and Eucalyptus crebra with associated Lophostemon suaveolens, Corymbia tessellaris, and Corymbia clarksoniana. Site Level: Q = quaternary site; T = secondary site; S = Secondary site.

176

Appendix B: Survey Flora Species List

177

Table A2. Floristic survey species list – mainland sites. * = Exotic species Numbers in columns = number of records / flora site.

Species name Launch site 1 Mainland tunnel launch site Red Rover Road TWAF7 TWAF 8 12.3.11 11.3.25 12.11.6 11.3.25 12.3.3 Non-R Non-R Non-R Non-R Non-R Non-R 12.3.3 12.1.3 12.3.3 11.3.4 12.1.1 12.1.2 1

Abildgaardia ovata 1 1

Abutilon microcarpa 1 1

Acacia auriculiformis (planting) 1

Acacia baileyana (planting) 1

Acacia disparrima subsp. disparrima 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

Acacia fascicularis 1

Acacia fimbriata (planting) 1 1

Acacia holosericea 1

Acacia leiocalyx 1 1

Acacia plurinervis (planting) 1

Acacia podalyriifolia (planting) 1

Acacia simsii (planting) 1

Acacia sp. (planting) 1

1 Fringing community dominated by Melaleuca nervosa located between 12.3.3 and marine plain. 178

Acalypha eremorum 1

Achyranthes aspera 1

Acronychia oblongifolia 1

Acrostichum speciosum 1

Aegeratum conyzioides 1 1 1 2

Agapanthes sp.* 1

Agave sp.* 1

Aidia racemosa 1

Ajuga sericea 1

Allocasuarina littoralis 1

Alchornea ilicifolia 1

Alternanthera denticulata 1

Alysicarpus vaginalis* 1

Ancistrachne uncinulata 1 1

Aristida calycina 1

Aristida sp. 2 1

Arundinella setosa 1 2

Asclepia curavissima* 1

Asclepias curassivaca 2

179

Atriplex muelleri 1

Avicennia marina 1 1

Baccharis halmifolia* (Declared) 1 1

Baloghia inophyllum 1

Bidens pilosa* 1 1

Blainvillea dubia 1

Bothriochloa pertusa* 1 1

Brachyscome sp. 1 1

Breynia oblongifolia 1 1 2 1

Bridelia leichhardtii 1

Brunoniella acaulis 1

Bulbostylis barbarta 1

Canavalia rosea 1

Capsicum annuum var. glabriusculum* 1

Carica papaya* 1

Cassytha filiformis 1 1

Casuarina equisitifolia 1

Casuarina glauca 1

Catharanthus rosea* 1

180

Cenchrus ciliaris 1

Centella asiatica 1

Ceriops tagal 1 1

Chaeacrista mimosoides 1 2 1

Cheilanthes seiberi 1

Chloris gayana* 1 1

Chloris virgata* 1 1

Chrysocephalum apiculatum 1

Chrysopogon fallax 1

Clerodendrum floribundum 1

Coatesia paniculata 1 1

Conyza sp.* 1 1 1 1

Corymbia citriodora subsp. variegata 5 1 1

Corymbia clarksoniana 1 2

Corymbia intermedia 1 1 1 1

Corymbia tessellaris 3 1 2

Crassocephalum crepidioides* 1 1

Crinum uniflorum 1

Crotalaria calycina 1 2 1

181

Crotalaria laburnifolia 1

Crotalaria pallida var. obovata* 1 1

Cryptocarya triplinervis 1

Cryptostegia grandiflora* (Declared) 1 1

Cupaniopsis anacardioides 1 1

Cyanthileum cinereum 1 1 1 1

Cymbopogon refractus 3

Cynodon dactylon* 1 1 1

Cyperus breviflora 1

Cyperus gracilis 1 1

Cyperus involucratus* 1

Cyperus pedunculatus 1

Cyperus sp. 1 1

Dactyloctineum radulans* 1

Delonix regia* 1

Dianella longifolia var. longifolia 1 1

Dianella rara 1 3 1 1

Dianella sp. (chunky) 1 1

Dianella sp. (GC13/1) 1

182

Dianella sp. (GCS21/1) 1

Digitaria brownii 1 1 1

Diospyros geminata 1

Dodonaea lanceolata var. subsessilifolia 1 2 1

Drypetes deplanchei 1 1

Dysphania glomulifera subsp. eremaea 1 1 1

Echinochloa colona* 1

Elaeodendron australe 1

Eleocharis sp. 1

Entolasia stricta 1 1

Epaltes australis 2 1 1

Eragristis tenuella 1

Eragrostis parviflora 1 1

Eragrostis sororia 1

Eragrostis sp. 1 1 1

Eremophila debilis 2 1 2 1 1

Ereochloa procera 1 3 1 1 1

Ereochloa sp. 1

Erythrina vespertilio 1

183

Eucalyptus crebra 1 1 3 1 1

Eucalyptus exserta 1 1 4 1

Eucalyptus moluccana 2

Eucalyptus tereticornis 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1

Euphorbia prostrata* 1

Euroschinus falcatus 1

Eustrephus latifolius 1 1 2 1

Evolvulus alsinoides var. decumbens 1 1 1 1

Excoecaria agollocha 1

Exocarpos latifolius 1

Ficus opposita 1 1 1

Ficus superba 1

Fimbristylis dichotoma 1 1 1 1

Fimbristylis ferruginea 1 3 1 1

Fimbristylis polytrichoides 1 1 1

Flemingia parviflora 1

Galactica tenuiflora 1 2 1 1

Glycine tomentella 2 1

Gomphandra fruticosus* 1

184

Goodenia glabra 1

Grewia retusifolia 1 1 1

Heteropogon contortus 1 1 1 1 1 2

Hybanthus stellarioides 1

Hyparrhenia rufa* 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 2

Hypericum gramineum 1 1

Imperata cylindrica 2 1 1

Indigofera hirsuta 1

Indigofera linifolia 1

Ipomea carica* 1

Ipomoea phlebia 1

Jacksonia scoparia 3 1 1

Jagera psuedorhus 1

Jasminum didymum subsp. didymum 1

Jasminum didymum subsp. racemosum 1 1

Lantana camara* (Declared) 1 2 1 2

Lantana montevidensis* (Declared) 1

Leucaena leucacephala* 1 1 1

Limonium solanderi 1 1

185

Lippia sp.* 1

Livistona australis 1

Lomandra longifolia 1 1 1 1

Lomandra multiflora subsp. multiflora 1 2

Lophostemon suaveolens 1 3 1 3 1 1

Ludwigia octovalvis 1

Lumnitzera racemosa 1 1

Macaranga tanarius 1

Macroptileum atropurpureum* 1 1 1 1 2 2 1

Macroptileum lathryoides* 1 1 2

Mallotus claoxyloides 1 1

Mallotus phillipensis 1 1

Megathyrsus maximus var. maximus* 2 1 3 1 1 1 1

Megathyrsus maximus var. pubiglumis* 1 1 1 1

Melaleuca fluviatilis 1 1

Melaleuca nervosa 1 1 1 3 1

Melaleuca viridiflora 1

Melia azederach 1 1

Melinus repens* 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

186

Murdania graminea 1

Myoporum acuminatum 1 1 1 1

Oplismenus aemulus 1 1

Opuntia aurantica* (Declared) 1 1 1

Osbornia octodonta 1 1

Ottochloa gracillima 1

Oxalis corniculata* 1

Panicum decompositum 1 2 1

Parsonsia lanceolata 1

Parsonsia plaesiophylla 2 1

Parsonsia velutina 1

Paspalidium distans 1

Passiflora aurantia* 1

Passiflora foetida* 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1

Passiflora suberosa* 1 1 1 2

Pavetta australiensis 1

Persicaria attenuata 1

Petalostigma pubescens 1 1 1 2 1

Phyllanthus virgatus 1 1 1

187

Physalis angulata* 1

Picris sp.* 1 1

Pittosporum spinescens 1 2

Planchonia careya 1 3 2

Pleiogynum timorense 1

Pleogyne australis 1

Pogonolobus reticulatus 1 2 2 1

Polymeria calycina 1

Polyscias elegans 1

Portulaca oleracea* 1 1

Praxelis clematidea* 1 1 1 1 2

Psydrax attenuata 2 1

Psydrax oleofolia 1

Pterocaulon spahcelata 1 2

Rhizophora sp. 1 1

Ricinus communis* 1

Rivina humilis* 1 1 1

Sarcocornia quinqueflora 1 1 1

Sarcostemma viminale subsp. brunonianum 1

188

Schinus terebinthifolius* (Declared) 1 1

Scleria sphacelata 1 1 1

Scoparia dulcis* 1 1

Sesbania cannabina 1 2

Sesuvium portulacastrum 1 2 1

Setaria oplismoides 1

Setaria sphacelata* 1

Sida acuta* 1

Sida corrugata* 1

Sida sp. 2

Sida subspicata 1 2 1 2

Sigsbeckia orientalis 1

Solanum nigrum* 1 1 1

Solanum seaforthianum* 1 1

Solanum torvum* 1 1 1

Sonchrus oleraceus* 1 1 1 1 2

Spermacocce multicaulis 1 1

Sphaeranthus africanus 1

Sporobolus actinocladus 1

189

Sporobolus virginicus 1 3 1 1 1

Stachytarpheta jamaicensis* 1 1 1 2 1

Sterculia quadrifida 1

Stylosanthes hamata* 1 1 1 1

Suaeda australis 1 1 1

Synedrella nodiflora* 1

Tamarisk sp.* 1

Tephrosia juncea 1 1 1

Terminalia porphryocarpa 1

Themeda triandra 1 2 2 1

Trema tomentosa 1 1

Trichodesma zeylanica 1

Tridax procumbens* 1

Tripogon loliformis 1

Turrea pubescens 1

Typha domingensis* 1 1

Urochloa mosambicensis* 1

Urochloa mutica* 1

Urochloa panicoides 1

190

Veronica procumbens* 1

Vigna marina 1

Vitex trifolia var. subtrisecta 1

Wedelia spilanthoides 1 1

Xanthorrhoea johnsonii 1

Xanthorrhoea latifolia 3 1

Zornia muriculata 1 1

191

Table A3. Floristic survey species list (3D Environmental, 2012)– Curtis Island. * = Exotic species Numbers in columns = number of records / flora site.

woodland ridges ridges

Species alluvium Forbland Mangrove woodland on Non-remnant metamorphics metamorphics metamorphics open forest on on forest open Vine thicket on thicket on Vine on metamorphics Eucalyptus crebra Eucalyptus Woodland on beach on beach Woodland Estuarine Grassland- Estuarine Eucalyptus crebra, E. crebra, E. Eucalyptus tereticornis crebra E. citriodora, C. Beach ridge vine thicket thicket vine ridge Beach Qld blue gumoncoastal

12.1.1 12.1.2 12.2.2 12.2.11 12.3.3 12.11.4 12.11.6 12.11.7 12.11.14 Non-R

Acacia disparrima subsp. Disparrima 2 1 3 2 1 2 1

Acacia julifera 1 1 3 1

Acacia maidenii 1 1

Achyranthes aspera 1

Acronychia oblongifolia 1 1

Acrostichum speciosum 1

Aidia racemosa 2 2

Alchornea thozetiana 2

Alectryon connatus 2 1

Alectryon diversifolius 1

192

woodland ridges

Species alluvium Forbland Mangrove woodland on Non-remnant metamorphics metamorphics metamorphics open forest on Vine thicket on on thicket Vine on metamorphics Eucalyptus crebra Eucalyptus Woodland on beach Estuarine Grassland- Estuarine Eucalyptus crebra, E. E. crebra, Eucalyptus tereticornis crebra E. citriodora, C. Beach ridge vine thicket Qld blue gum on coastal

12.1.1 12.1.2 12.2.2 12.2.11 12.3.3 12.11.4 12.11.6 12.11.7 12.11.14 Non-R

Alphitonia excelsa 1 1 1 2 1

Alyxia spicata 2 1 1

Aristida sp. 1 1 1 1 1

Arytera divaricata 1

Asclepia curavissima* 1

Atriplex muelleri 1

Avicennia marina 1

Baccharis halmifolia* (Declared) 1

Bothriochloa pertusa* 1

Brachyscome sp. 1

Breynia oblongifolia 1 1

Bridelia leichhardtii 1 1

Bulbostylis barbarta 1

Canavalia rosea 1

193

woodland ridges

12.1.1 12.1.2 12.2.2 12.2.11 12.3.3 12.11.4 12.11.6 12.11.7 12.11.14 Non-R

Capparis canescens 1 1 1

Capparis ornans 2 1

Carissa ovata 1

Cassytha filiformis 1

Casuarina equisitifolia var. incana 1

Casuarina glauca 1

Celtis paniculata 1

Celtis philippensis 1

Cenchrus ciliaris 1

Ceriops tagal 1

Chloris gayana* 1

Chloris virgata* 2

Chrysopogon fallax 1

Clerodendrum floribundum 2 1

194

woodland ridges

12.1.1 12.1.2 12.2.2 12.2.11 12.3.3 12.11.4 12.11.6 12.11.7 12.11.14 Non-R

Conyza sp. 2

Corymbia citriodora subsp. Variegata 3

Corymbia clarksoniana 3 4 1

Corymbia intermedia 1

Corymbia tessellaris 1 1 1 1

Crassocephalum crepidioides* 1

Crotalaria calycina 1

Crotalaria laburnifolia 1

Crotalaria pallida var. obovata 1 1

Cryptocarya triplinervis 1

Cryptostegia grandiflora* (Declared) 1 1

Cupaniopsis anacardioides 3 1 2 1

Cupaniopsis sp. 1

Cyanthileum cinereum 1 1

195

woodland ridges

12.1.1 12.1.2 12.2.2 12.2.11 12.3.3 12.11.4 12.11.6 12.11.7 12.11.14 Non-R

Cyclophyllum coprosmoides var. spathulatum 1

Cymbopogon refractus 1 1 1 1

Cyperus gracilis 1

Cyperus sp. 1 1

Dianella longifolia var. longifolia 1 1 1

Dianella revoluta 1 1 1

Dianella sp. (GCS22/1) 1

Dinosperma erythrococca 1 1

Diospyros geminata 2 1

Drypetes deplanchei 4 1 2

Elaeodendron melanocarpum 1

Eleocharis sp. 1

Enneapogon robustissimus 1

Eragrostis sp. 1

196

woodland ridges

12.1.1 12.1.2 12.2.2 12.2.11 12.3.3 12.11.4 12.11.6 12.11.7 12.11.14 Non-R

Eremophila debilis 1

Ereochloa procera 1

Eucalyptus crebra 1 1 1 2 3 7 2

Eucalyptus exserta 1 1 1 3 1

Eucalyptus tereticornis 1 3 1 1

Euroschinus falcatus 2

Eustrephus latifolius 2 1 1 1 1

Evolvulus alsinoides var. decumbens 1

Excoecaria agollocha 1

Exocarpos latifolius 2 1

Fabaceae (GCT34/1) 1

Ficus obliqua 1

Ficus opposita 1

Fimbristylis ferruginea 1

197

woodland ridges

12.1.1 12.1.2 12.2.2 12.2.11 12.3.3 12.11.4 12.11.6 12.11.7 12.11.14 Non-R

Fimbristylis polytrichoides 1

Flindersia australis 1 1

Gahnia aspera 1 1 1 1

Galactica tomentella 1

Grewia retusifolia 1

Hardenbergia violacea 1

Harpullia pendula 1

Heteropogon contortus 1 2 4 1

Hibiscus meraukensis 1

Hybanthus stellarioides 1

Hyparrhenia rufa* 1

Hypericum gramineum 1

Imperata cylindrica 1

Ipomoea carica* 1

198

woodland ridges

12.1.1 12.1.2 12.2.2 12.2.11 12.3.3 12.11.4 12.11.6 12.11.7 12.11.14 Non-R

Jagera pseudorhus var. pseudorhus 1 1 1

Jasminum sp. 1 1

Lantana camara* (Declared) 2 1 2

Leucaena leucacephala* 1

Limonium solanderi 1

Livistona decora 1 2

Lomandra multiflora subsp. Multiflora 1

Lophostemon suaveolens 2

Lumnitzera racemosa 1

Macroptileum atropurpureum* 1

Macroptileum lathryoides* 1

Megathyrsus maximus var. pubiglumis* 1

Melaleuca nervosa 1 1 1

Melinus repens* 1

199

woodland ridges

12.1.1 12.1.2 12.2.2 12.2.11 12.3.3 12.11.4 12.11.6 12.11.7 12.11.14 Non-R

Melodorum leichhardtii 1

Micromelum minutum 1

Myoporum acuminatum 1

Myrsine variabilis 2 1

Notelaea microcarpa var. microcarpa 1 1

Oplismenus aemulus 2 1

Opuntia aurantica* (Declared) 1

Opuntia stricta* (Declared) 2 1

Osbornia octodonta 1

Ottochloa gracillima 2 1 1

Panicum decompositum 1

Paspalidium distans 1

Passiflora foetida* 1 1

Passiflora suberosa* 2 1 1 1 1

200

woodland ridges

12.1.1 12.1.2 12.2.2 12.2.11 12.3.3 12.11.4 12.11.6 12.11.7 12.11.14 Non-R

Persicaria attenuata 1

Petalostigma pubescens 1 1 1

Physalis angulata* 1

Picris sp.* 1

Pittosporum ferrugineum 1 1

Planchonia careya 2 1 1

Pleiogynium timorense 3 1 1

Pleogyne australis 2 1

Pogonolobus reticulatus 1 1 1 1 1 4 1

Polyalthia nitidissima 1

Praxelis clematidea* 1 1

Psuederanthemum variable 1

Psychotria daphnoides 1

Psydrax lucida 1

201

woodland ridges

12.1.1 12.1.2 12.2.2 12.2.11 12.3.3 12.11.4 12.11.6 12.11.7 12.11.14 Non-R

Psydrax sp. 1

Rhamnella vitiense 1

Rhizophora sp. 1

Rhysotoechia bifoliolata subsp. Bifoliolata 1

Ricinus communis* 1

Rivina humilis* 2 1 1

Sarcostemma viminale subsp. Brunonianum 1 1

Schinus terebinthifolius* (Declared) 1

Scleria sphacelata 1 1

Secamone elliptica 1

Senna gaudichaudiana 1

Sersalisia sericea 4 2

Sesbania cannabina 1

Sesuvium portulacastrum 1

202

woodland ridges

12.1.1 12.1.2 12.2.2 12.2.11 12.3.3 12.11.4 12.11.6 12.11.7 12.11.14 Non-R

Sida acuta* 1 1

Sida corrugata 1

Sida subspicata 1 1

Sigesbeckia orientalis 1

Solanum nigrum* 1

Solanum seaforthianum* 1 1 1

Solanum torvum* 1

Sonchus oleraceus* 1 1

Sporobolus virginicus 1 1

Sracocornia quinquefolia 1

Stachytarpheta jamaicensis* 2

Sterculia quadrifida 1

Stylosanthes hamata* 1 1

Suaeda australis 1

203

woodland ridges

12.1.1 12.1.2 12.2.2 12.2.11 12.3.3 12.11.4 12.11.6 12.11.7 12.11.14 Non-R

Tamarix aphylla* 1

Timonius timon 1

Trema tomentosa 1

Tridax procumbens* 1

Tripogon loliformis 1

Trophis scandens subsp. Scandens 2 1

Turraea pubescens 1 1 1 1

Typha domingensis* 1

Urena lobata* 1

Vigna marina 1

Vitex trifolia var. subtrisecta 1 1

Xanthorrhoea johnsonii 1

Zornia muriculata 1

204

Appendix C: Vertebrate Species List

205

AMPHIBIANS

N = 10

Amphibians Status Site

Scientific Name Common Name NCA NCA EPBC Facility LNG Island Curtis Road Rover Red site launch tunnel Mainland TWAF 8 Launch site 1 Area Project Within Mainland 5 km buffer Within Mainland Buffer 5 km within Island Curtis Limnodynastes peronii Striped marshfrog LC X

Litoria latopalmata Broad palmed rocketfrog LC X

Litoria caerulea Common green treefrog LC X X X X

Litoria fallax Eastern sedgefrog LC X X X X X

Litoria gracilenta Graceful treefrog LC X

Litoria nasuta Striped rocketfrog LC X X

Litoria rubella Ruddy treefrog LC X X X

Platyplectrum ornatum Ornate burrowing frog LC X

Pseudophryne raveni Copper backed broodfrog LC X

Rhinella marina Cane toad I X X X X X X X X

**Species listings under EPBC Act and NC Act, LC = Least Concern, I = Introduced

207

BIRDS N = 135

Birds Status Site

Scientific Name Common Name NC ACT NC EPBC LNG Island Facility Curtis Road Rover Red site launch tunnel Mainland 8 TWAF 1 site Launch Area Project Within Mainland km buffer 5 Within Mainland km Buffer within 5 Island Curtis Accipiter fasciatus Brown goshawk LC X X

Accipiter novaehollandiae Grey goshawk NT X

Aegotheles cristatus Australian owlet-nightjar LC X X X

Alectura lathami Australian brush-turkey LC X X

Anas superciliosa Pacific black duck LC X X X

Anthus novaeseelandiae Australasian pipit LC X X

Aprosmictus erythropterus Red-winged parrot LC X

Aquila audax Wedge-tailed eagle LC X X X X

Ardea alba Great egret LC Mig X

Ardea intermedia Intermediate egret LC X

208

Birds Status Site

Scientific Name Common Name NC ACT EPBC Facility LNG Island Curtis Road Rover Red Mainland tunnellaunch site TWAF 8 site 1 Launch Area Project Within Mainland Mainland Within 5km buffer km within 5 Island Buffer Curtis Ardea pacifica White-necked heron LC X

Artamus leucorynchus White-breasted woodswallow LC X X X

Aviceda subcristata Pacific baza LC X X

Aythya australis Hardhead LC X

Burhinus grallarius Bush stone-curlew LC X X

Butorides striata Striated heron LC X X X

Cacomantis flabelliformis Fan-tailed cuckoo LC X X

Cacomantis variolosus Brush cuckoo LC X

Calyptorhynchus banksii Red-tailed black-cockatoo LC X X X X

Calyptorhynchus lathami Glossy black-cockatoo V X

Caprimulgus macrurus Large-tailed nightjar LC X X

Carterornis leucotis White-eared monarch LC X

Centropus phasianinus Pheasant coucal LC X X X X

Chalcites lucidus Shining bronze-cuckoo LC X

Charadrius mongolus Lesser sand plover LC Mig X

209

Birds Status Site

Chlidonias hybrida Whiskered tern LC X

Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae Silver gull LC X X X

Cisticola exilis Golden-headed cisticola LC X X X

Colluricincia megarhyncha Little shrike-thrush LC X

Colluricincla harmonica Grey shrike-thrush LC X X X X

Coracina novaehollandiae Black-faced cuckoo-shrike LC X X X X X X

Coracina papuensis White-bellied cuckoo-shrike LC X

Coracina tenuirostris Cicadabird LC X X

Corcorax melanorhamphos White-winged chough LC X X X X

Corvus orru Torresian crow LC X X X X X X X X

Cracticus nigrogularis Pied butcherbird LC X X X X

Cracticus tibicen Australian magpie LC X X X X X X

Cracticus torquatus Grey butcherbird LC X X

Dacelo leachii Blue-winged kookaburra LC X X X X X

210

Birds Status Site

Daphoenositta chrysoptera Varied sittella LC X

Dicaeum hirundinaceum Mistletoebird LC X X X X

Dicrurus bracteatus Spangled drongo LC X X X X X

Egretta garzetta Little egret LC X X

Egretta novaehollandiae White-faced heron LC X X X

Elanus axillaris Black-shouldered kite LC X X

Elseyornis melanops Black-fronted dotterel LC X

Entomyzon cyanotis Blue-faced honeyeater LC X

Eolophus roseicapillus Galah LC X X X

Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus Black-necked stork NT X

Esacus magnirostris Beach stone-curlew V X X

Eudynamys orientalis Eastern koel LC X X

Eurostopodus mystacalis White-throated nightjar LC X X

Eurystomus orientalis Dollarbird LC X

211

Birds Status Site

Falco cenchroides Nankeen kestrel LC X

Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon LC X

Gallinula tenebrosa Dusky moorhen LC X

Gelochelidon nilotica Gull-billed tern LC X

Geopelia humeralis Bar-shouldered dove LC X X X X X X

Geopelia striata Peaceful dove LC X X X X X

Geophaps scripta Squatter pigeon V V X

Gerygone levigaster Mangrove gerygone LC X X X

Gerygone palpebrosa Fairy gerygone LC X

Glossopsitta pusilla Little lorikeet LC X X X X

Grallina cyanoleuca Magpie-lark LC X

Haematopus longirostris Australian pied oystercatcher LC X X X

Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied aea-eagle LC Mig X X X

Haliastur indus Brahminy kite LC X X X X X X

212

Birds Status Site

Hieraaetus morphnoides Little eagle LC X

Himantopus himantopus Black-winged stilt LC X

Hirundo neoxena Welcome swallow LC X X X X X X

Hydroprogne caspia Caspian tern LC X X

Lalage leucomela Varied triller LC X X

Lichenostomus chrysops Yellow-faced honeyeater LC X X X

Lichenostomus fasciogularis Mangrove honeyeater LC X X X X

Lichmera indistincta Brown honeyeater LC X X X X X X

Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed godwit LC Mig X X X

Lonchura castaneothorax Chestnut-breasted mannikin LC X

Lophoictinia isura Square-tailed kite NT X

Malurus melanocephalus Red-backed fairy-wren LC X X X X X X X

Manorina melanocephala Noisy miner LC X

Meliphaga lewinii Lewin's honeyeater LC X X

213

Birds Status Site

Melithreptus lunatus White-naped honeyeater LC X

Merops ornatus Rainbow bee-eater LC Mig X X X X X X X X

Microcarbo melanoleucos Little pied cormorant LC X

Milvus migrans Black kite LC X

Myiagra alecto Shining flycatcher LC X

Myiagra rubecula Leaden flycatcher LC X X X X X

Myzomela sanguinolenta Scarlet honeyeater LC X X X X X

Nectarinia jugularis Olive-backed sunbird LC

Ninox boobook Southern boobook LC X X X

Ninox connivens Barking owl LC X X

Ninox strenua Powerful owl V X

Numenius madagascariensis Eastern curlew NT Mig X X X X X

Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel LC Mig X X X

Ocyphaps lophotes Crested pigeon LC X X

214

Birds Status Site

Pachycephala pectoralis Golden whistler LC X

Pachycephala rufiventris Rufous whistler LC X X X X X

Pandion hailateus Eastern osprey LC X X X

Pardalotus punctatus Spotted pardalote LC X X

Pardalotus striatus Striated pardalote LC X X X X X X X

Pelecanus conspicillatus Australian pelican LC X

Petrochelidon ariel Fairy martin LC X X X

Petrochelidon nigricans Tree martin LC X

Phalacrocorax varius Pied cormorant LC X

Philemon citreogularis Little friarbird LC X X X X X X

Philemon corniculatus Noisy friarbird LC X X X X X X

Platycercus adscitus Pale-headed rosella LC X X X

Podargus strigoides Tawny frogmouth LC X X

Pomatostomus temporalis Grey-crowned babbler LC X X

215

Birds Status Site

Rhipidura albiscapa Grey fantail LC X X X X X

Rhipidura leucophrys Willie wagtail LC X X X X X X

Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous fantail LC Mig X

Scythrops novaehollandiae Channel-billed cuckoo LC X

Sphecotheres vieilloti Australasian figbird LC X X X

Strepera graculina Pied currawong LC X X X

Tachybaptus novaehollandiae Australian grebe LC X

Taeniopygia bichenovii Double-barred finch LC X X X X X

Thalasseus bergii Crested tern LC X

Threskiornis molucca Australian white ibis LC X

Todiramphus chloris Collared kingfisher LC X X X

Todiramphus macleayii Forest kingfisher LC X X X X

Todiramphus sanctus Sacred kingfisher LC X

Trichoglossus chlorolepidotus Scaly-breasted lorikeet LC X X X

216

Birds Status Site

Turnix varius Painted button quail LC X

Vanellus miles Masked lapwing LC X X X X X X

Zosterops lateralis Silvereye LC X X X

**Species listings under EPBC Act and NC Act, LC = Least Concern, V = Vulnerable, NT = Near Threatened, Mig = Migratory

217

MAMMALS

N = 28

Mammals Status Site

Scientific Name Common Name NC ACT ACT NC EPBC Intoduced LNG Island Curtis Facility Road Rover Red tunnel Mainland launch site TWAF 8 Launch site 1 Within Mainland Project Area 5 Within Mainland buffer km within Island Curtis Buffer 5 km Aepyprymnus rufescens Rufous bettong LC X

Canis familiaris Dog I I X X X X

Canis lupis dingo Dingo I I

Chalinolobus gouldii Gould's wattled bat LC

Dugong dugon Dugong V Mig

Equus Cabalius Horse I I

Felis catus Cat I I X

Hydromys chrysogaster Water rat LC X X

Isoodon macrourus Northern brown bandicoot LC X

Lepus capensis Brown hare LC X X

Macropus agilis Agile wallaby LC X

Macropus giganteus Eastern grey kangaroo LC X X X

Macropus parryi Pretty-faced wallaby LC X

Miniopterus australis Little bent-wing bat LC X X X

Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis Eastern bent-wing bat LC X

219

Mammals Status Site

Scientific Name Common Name NC ACT NC EPBC Intoduced LNG Island Curtis Facility Road Rover Red tunnel Mainland launch site 8 TWAF 1 site Launch Within Mainland Project Area 5 Within Mainland buffer km within Island Curtis Buffer 5 km Petauroides volans Greater glider LC X X X

Petaurus australis Yellow-bellied glider LC X

Petaurus breviceps Sugar glider LC X X

Pteropus alecto Black flying-fox LC X X X X X

Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed flying-fox LC V X X

Rattus rattus Black rat LC X

Sus scrofa*** Pig I I X

Tachyglossus aculeatus Short-beaked echidna LC X X X

Tadarida australis White-striped freetail bat LC X X X X

Trichosurus vulpecula Common Brushtail Possum LC X X X X

Vulpes vulpes*** Red fox I I X X X

Wallabia bicolor Swamp wallaby LC X

Xeromys myoides Water mouse V V X X

**Species listings under EPBC Act and NC Act, LC = Least Concern, V = Vulnerable, I = Introduced, Mig = Migratory

220

REPTILES

N = 24

Reptiles Status Site

Scientific Name Common Name NC ACT NC EPBC Facility LNG Island Curtis Rover Road Red Mainland tunnellaunch site 8 TWAF 1 site Launch Mainland Within Project Area Mainland Within 5 km buffer km 5 within Island Curtis Buffer Carlia foliorum Iridescent litter-skink LC X X X

Carlia vivax Lively rainbow skink LC X X

Cryptoblepharus pulcher Elegant snake-eyed skink LC X

Cryptoblepharus virgatus sensu lato LC X X X X

Ctenotus Robustus Eastern-striped skink LC X X

Ctenotus taeniolatus Copper-tailed skink LC X

Dendrelaphis punctulata Common tree snake LC X X X

Diplodactylus vittatus Wood gecko LC X

Eulamprus tenuis Bar-sided skink LC X

Furina diadema Red-naked snake LC X X

Gehyra variegata Variegated dtella LC X

Glaphyromorphus punctulatus Fine-spotted mulch-skink LC X

Heteronotia binoei Binoe's gecko LC X X X X

Lampropholis delicata Grass skink LC X

221

Reptiles Status Site

Scientific Name Common Name NC ACT EPBC Facility LNG Island Curtis Red Rover Road Mainland tunnellaunch site TWAF 8 site 1 Launch Mainland Within Project Area Mainland Withinkm 5 buffer km 5 within Island Curtis Buffer Morelia spilota Carpet python LC X X

Oedura rhombifer Zigzag velvet gecko LC X X

Pogona barbata Bearded dragon LC X

Ramphotyphlops wiedii Brown-snouted blind snake LC X

Rhinoplocephalus boschmai Carpentaria whip snake LC X

Varanus tristis Black-tailed monitor LC X X **Species listings under EPBC Act and NC Act, LC = Least Concern, V = Vulnerable

222

Appendix D. EPBC Search (50 km Buffer)

223

EPBC Act Protected Matters Report

This report provides general guidance on matters of national environmental significance and other matters protected by the EPBC Act in the area you have selected.

Information on the coverage of this report and qualifications on data supporting this report are contained in the caveat at the end of the report.

Information is available about Environment Assessments and the EPBC Act including significance guidelines, forms and application process details.

Report created: 05/09/12 15:52:55

Summary Details Matters of NES Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act Extra Information Caveat Acknowledgements

Coordinates Buffer: 1.0Km Summary

Matters of National Environmental Significance

This part of the report summarises the matters of national environmental significance that may occur in, or may relate to, the area you nominated. Further information is available in the detail part of the report, which can be accessed by scrolling or following the links below. If you are proposing to undertake an activity that may have a significant impact on one or more matters of national environmental significance then you should consider the Administrative Guidelines on Significance.

World Heritage Properties: 1 National Heritage Places: 1 Wetlands of International Importance: None Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: 12 Commonwealth Marine Areas: 1 Listed Threatened Ecological Communities: 6 Listed Threatened Species: 52 Listed Migratory Species: 54

Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act

This part of the report summarises other matters protected under the Act that may relate to the area you nominated. Approval may be required for a proposed activity that significantly affects the environment on Commonwealth land, when the action is outside the Commonwealth land, or the environment anywhere when the action is taken on Commonwealth land. Approval may also be required for the Commonwealth or Commonwealth agencies proposing to take an action that is likely to have a significant impact on the environment anywhere.

The EPBC Act protects the environment on Commonwealth land, the environment from the actions taken on Commonwealth land, and the environment from actions taken by Commonwealth agencies. As heritage values of a place are part of the 'environment', these aspects of the EPBC Act protect the Commonwealth Heritage values of a Commonwealth Heritage place and the heritage values of a place on the Register of the National Estate.

A permit may be required for activities in or on a Commonwealth area that may affect a member of a listed threatened species or ecological community, a member of a listed migratory species, whales and other cetaceans, or a member of a listed marine species.

Commonwealth Land: 1 Commonwealth Heritage Places: 1 Listed Marine Species: 97 Whales and Other Cetaceans: 12 Critical Habitats: None Commonwealth Reserves: None Extra Information

This part of the report provides information that may also be relevant to the area you have nominated.

Place on the RNE: 16 State and Territory Reserves: 24 Regional Forest Agreements: None Invasive Species: 19 Nationally Important Wetlands: 6 Key Ecological Features (Marine) None

Details

Matters of National Environmental Significance World Heritage Properties [ Resource Information ] Name State Status Great Barrier Reef QLD Declared property

National Heritage Properties [ Resource Information ] Name State Status Natural Great Barrier Reef QLD Listed place

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park [ Resource Information ] Type Zone IUCN Conservation Park CP-23-4107 IV Conservation Park CP-23-4110 IV Conservation Park CP-23-4108 IV Conservation Park CP-23-4109 IV General Use GU-21-6016 VI Habitat Protection HP-23-5363 VI Habitat Protection HP-23-5362 VI Habitat Protection HP-23-5370 VI Habitat Protection HP-23-5369 VI Habitat Protection HP-23-5367 VI Habitat Protection HP-23-5374 VI Marine National Park MNP-23-1167 II

Commonwealth Marine Areas [ Resource Information ] Approval may be required for a proposed activity that is likely to have a significant impact on the environment in a Commonwealth Marine Area, when the action is outside the Commonwealth Marine Area, or the environment anywhere when the action is taken within the Commonwealth Marine Area. Generally the Commonwealth Marine Area stretches from three nautical miles to two hundred nautical miles from the coast. Name EEZ and Territorial Sea

Listed Threatened Ecological Communities [ Resource Information ] For threatened ecological communities where the distribution is well known, maps are derived from recovery plans, State vegetation maps, remote sensing imagery and other sources. Where threatened ecological community distributions are less well known, existing vegetation maps and point location data are used to produce indicative distribution maps. Name Status Type of Presence Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co- Endangered Community likely to dominant) occur within area Coolibah - Black Box Woodlands of the Darling Endangered Community may occur Riverine Plains and the Brigalow Belt South within area Bioregions Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Critically Endangered Community likely to Eastern Australia occur within area Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia Critically Endangered Community may occur within area Name Status Type of Presence Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt Endangered Community likely to (North and South) and Nandewar Bioregions occur within area Weeping Myall Woodlands Endangered Community likely to occur within area Listed Threatened Species [ Resource Information ] Name Status Type of Presence Birds Botaurus poiciloptilus Australasian Bittern [1001] Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area Epthianura crocea macgregori Yellow Chat (Dawson) [67090] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area Erythrotriorchis radiatus Red Goshawk [942] Vulnerable Species or species habitat known to occur within area Fregetta grallaria grallaria White-bellied Storm-Petrel (Tasman Sea), White- Vulnerable Species or species bellied Storm-Petrel (Australasian) [64438] habitat likely to occur within area Geophaps scripta scripta Squatter Pigeon (southern) [64440] Vulnerable Species or species habitat known to occur within area Macronectes giganteus Southern Giant-Petrel [1060] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area Neochmia ruficauda ruficauda Star Finch (eastern), Star Finch (southern) [26027] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Poephila cincta cincta Black-throated Finch (southern) [64447] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Pterodroma heraldica Herald Petrel [66973] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area Pterodroma neglecta neglecta Kermadec Petrel (western) [64450] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area Rostratula australis Australian Painted Snipe [77037] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Turnix melanogaster Black-breasted Button-quail [923] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Mammals Balaenoptera musculus Blue Whale [36] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area Chalinolobus dwyeri Large-eared Pied Bat, Large Pied Bat [183] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area Dasyurus hallucatus Northern Quoll [331] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback Whale [38] Vulnerable Breeding known to occur within area Name Status Type of Presence Nyctophilus corbeni South-eastern Long-eared Bat [83395] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area Petrogale penicillata Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby [225] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area Phascolarctos cinereus (combined populations of Qld, NSW and the ACT) Koala (combined populations of Queensland, New Vulnerable Species or species South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory) habitat known to occur [85104] within area Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed Flying-fox [186] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area Xeromys myoides Water Mouse, False Water Rat [66] Vulnerable Species or species habitat known to occur within area Other Cycas megacarpa [55794] Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area Cycas ophiolitica [55797] Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area Plants Apatophyllum olsenii [7718] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Atalaya collina [55417] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Bosistoa selwynii Heart-leaved Bosistoa [13702] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Bosistoa transversa Three-leaved Bosistoa [16091] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Bulbophyllum globuliforme Miniature Moss-orchid [6649] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Cossinia australiana Cossinia [3066] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Cupaniopsis shirleyana Wedge-leaf Tuckeroo [3205] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Germainia capitata [14069] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Grevillea venusta [7960] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Leucopogon cuspidatus [9739] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Parsonsia larcomensis Mt Larcom Silk Pod [64587] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur Name Status Type of Presence within area Samadera bidwillii [29708] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Sophora fraseri [8836] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Streblus pendulinus Siah's Backbone, Sia's Backbone, Isaac Wood Endangered Species or species [21618] habitat likely to occur within area Taeniophyllum muelleri Minute Orchid, Ribbon-root Orchid [10771] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Reptiles Caretta caretta Loggerhead Turtle [1763] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Chelonia mydas Green Turtle [1765] Vulnerable Breeding known to occur within area Delma torquata Collared Delma [1656] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area Denisonia maculata Ornamental Snake [1193] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback Turtle, Leathery Turtle, Luth [1768] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Egernia rugosa Yakka Skink [1420] Vulnerable Species or species habitat known to occur within area Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill Turtle [1766] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Furina dunmalli Dunmall's Snake [59254] Vulnerable Species or species habitat known to occur within area Lepidochelys olivacea Olive Ridley Turtle, Pacific Ridley Turtle [1767] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Natator depressus Flatback Turtle [59257] Vulnerable Breeding known to occur within area Paradelma orientalis Brigalow Scaly-foot [59134] Vulnerable Species or species habitat known to occur within area Rheodytes leukops Fitzroy River Turtle, Fitzroy Tortoise, Fitzroy Vulnerable Species or species Turtle [1761] habitat may occur within area Sharks Pristis zijsron Green Sawfish, Dindagubba, Narrowsnout Sawfish Vulnerable Species or species [68442] habitat may occur within area Rhincodon typus Whale Shark [66680] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area Listed Migratory Species [ Resource Information ] * Species is listed under a different scientific name on the EPBC Act - Threatened Species list. Name Threatened Type of Presence Migratory Marine Birds Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift [678] Species or species habitat may occur within area Ardea alba Great Egret, White Egret [59541] Species or species habitat may occur within area Ardea ibis Cattle Egret [59542] Breeding likely to occur within area Macronectes giganteus Southern Giant-Petrel [1060] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area Sterna albifrons Little Tern [813] Species or species habitat may occur within area Migratory Marine Species Balaenoptera edeni Bryde's Whale [35] Species or species habitat may occur within area Balaenoptera musculus Blue Whale [36] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area Caretta caretta Loggerhead Turtle [1763] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Chelonia mydas Green Turtle [1765] Vulnerable Breeding known to occur within area Crocodylus porosus Salt-water Crocodile, Estuarine Crocodile [1774] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback Turtle, Leathery Turtle, Luth [1768] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Dugong dugon Dugong [28] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill Turtle [1766] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Lamna nasus Porbeagle, Mackerel Shark [83288] Species or species habitat may occur within area Lepidochelys olivacea Olive Ridley Turtle, Pacific Ridley Turtle [1767] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback Whale [38] Vulnerable Breeding known to occur within area Natator depressus Flatback Turtle [59257] Vulnerable Breeding known to occur within area Orcaella brevirostris Irrawaddy Dolphin [45] Species or species habitat may occur within area Name Threatened Type of Presence Orcinus orca Killer Whale, Orca [46] Species or species habitat may occur within area Rhincodon typus Whale Shark [66680] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area Sousa chinensis Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin [50] Species or species habitat may occur within area Migratory Terrestrial Species Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-Eagle [943] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated Needletail [682] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow [662] Species or species habitat may occur within area Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater [670] Species or species habitat may occur within area Monarcha melanopsis Black-faced Monarch [609] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Monarcha trivirgatus Spectacled Monarch [610] Breeding likely to occur within area Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher [612] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail [592] Breeding may occur within area Migratory Wetlands Species Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper [59309] Roosting known to occur within area Ardea alba Great Egret, White Egret [59541] Species or species habitat may occur within area Ardea ibis Cattle Egret [59542] Breeding likely to occur within area Arenaria interpres Ruddy Turnstone [872] Roosting known to occur within area Calidris acuminata Sharp-tailed Sandpiper [874] Roosting known to occur within area Calidris canutus Red Knot, Knot [855] Roosting known to occur within area Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper [856] Roosting known to occur within area Calidris ruficollis Red-necked Stint [860] Roosting known to occur within area Calidris tenuirostris Great Knot [862] Roosting known to occur within area Name Threatened Type of Presence Charadrius bicinctus Double-banded Plover [895] Roosting known to occur within area Charadrius leschenaultii Greater Sand Plover, Large Sand Plover [877] Roosting known to occur within area Charadrius mongolus Lesser Sand Plover, Mongolian Plover [879] Roosting known to occur within area Gallinago hardwickii Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe [863] Roosting may occur within area Heteroscelus brevipes Grey-tailed Tattler [59311] Roosting known to occur within area Limicola falcinellus Broad-billed Sandpiper [842] Roosting known to occur within area Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit [844] Roosting known to occur within area Limosa limosa Black-tailed Godwit [845] Roosting known to occur within area Numenius madagascariensis Eastern Curlew [847] Roosting known to occur within area Numenius minutus Little Curlew, Little Whimbrel [848] Roosting known to occur within area Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel [849] Roosting known to occur within area Pluvialis fulva Pacific Golden Plover [25545] Roosting known to occur within area Pluvialis squatarola Grey Plover [865] Roosting known to occur within area Rostratula benghalensis (sensu lato) Painted Snipe [889] Vulnerable* Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Tringa stagnatilis Marsh Sandpiper, Little Greenshank [833] Roosting known to occur within area Xenus cinereus Terek Sandpiper [59300] Roosting known to occur within area

Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act Commonwealth Land [ Resource Information ] The Commonwealth area listed below may indicate the presence of Commonwealth land in this vicinity. Due to the unreliability of the data source, all proposals should be checked as to whether it impacts on a Commonwealth area, before making a definitive decision. Contact the State or Territory government land department for further information. Name Defence - GLADSTONE ARES DEPOT

Commonwealth Heritage Places [ Resource Information ] Name State Status Natural Great Barrier Reef Region ( Commonwealth ) QLD Indicative Place

Listed Marine Species [ Resource Information ] * Species is listed under a different scientific name on the EPBC Act - Threatened Species list. Name Threatened Type of Presence Birds Name Threatened Type of Presence Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper [59309] Roosting known to occur within area Anseranas semipalmata Magpie Goose [978] Species or species habitat may occur within area Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift [678] Species or species habitat may occur within area Ardea alba Great Egret, White Egret [59541] Species or species habitat may occur within area Ardea ibis Cattle Egret [59542] Breeding likely to occur within area Arenaria interpres Ruddy Turnstone [872] Roosting known to occur within area Calidris acuminata Sharp-tailed Sandpiper [874] Roosting known to occur within area Calidris canutus Red Knot, Knot [855] Roosting known to occur within area Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper [856] Roosting known to occur within area Calidris ruficollis Red-necked Stint [860] Roosting known to occur within area Calidris tenuirostris Great Knot [862] Roosting known to occur within area Charadrius bicinctus Double-banded Plover [895] Roosting known to occur within area Charadrius leschenaultii Greater Sand Plover, Large Sand Plover [877] Roosting known to occur within area Charadrius mongolus Lesser Sand Plover, Mongolian Plover [879] Roosting known to occur within area Charadrius ruficapillus Red-capped Plover [881] Roosting known to occur within area Gallinago hardwickii Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe [863] Roosting may occur within area Gallinago megala Swinhoe's Snipe [864] Roosting likely to occur within area Gallinago stenura Pin-tailed Snipe [841] Roosting likely to occur within area Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-Eagle [943] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Heteroscelus brevipes Grey-tailed Tattler [59311] Roosting known to occur within area Himantopus himantopus Black-winged Stilt [870] Roosting known to occur within area Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated Needletail [682] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Name Threatened Type of Presence Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow [662] Species or species habitat may occur within area Limicola falcinellus Broad-billed Sandpiper [842] Roosting known to occur within area Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit [844] Roosting known to occur within area Limosa limosa Black-tailed Godwit [845] Roosting known to occur within area Macronectes giganteus Southern Giant-Petrel [1060] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater [670] Species or species habitat may occur within area Monarcha melanopsis Black-faced Monarch [609] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Monarcha trivirgatus Spectacled Monarch [610] Breeding likely to occur within area Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher [612] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Numenius madagascariensis Eastern Curlew [847] Roosting known to occur within area Numenius minutus Little Curlew, Little Whimbrel [848] Roosting known to occur within area Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel [849] Roosting known to occur within area Pluvialis fulva Pacific Golden Plover [25545] Roosting known to occur within area Pluvialis squatarola Grey Plover [865] Roosting known to occur within area Recurvirostra novaehollandiae Red-necked Avocet [871] Roosting known to occur within area Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail [592] Breeding may occur within area Rostratula benghalensis (sensu lato) Painted Snipe [889] Vulnerable* Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Sterna albifrons Little Tern [813] Species or species habitat may occur within area Tringa stagnatilis Marsh Sandpiper, Little Greenshank [833] Roosting known to occur within area Xenus cinereus Terek Sandpiper [59300] Roosting known to occur within area Fish Acentronura tentaculata Shortpouch Pygmy Pipehorse [66187] Species or species habitat may occur within area Name Threatened Type of Presence Campichthys tryoni Tryon's Pipefish [66193] Species or species habitat may occur within area Choeroichthys brachysoma Pacific Short-bodied Pipefish, Short-bodied Species or species Pipefish [66194] habitat may occur within area Corythoichthys amplexus Fijian Banded Pipefish, Brown-banded Pipefish Species or species [66199] habitat may occur within area Corythoichthys flavofasciatus Reticulate Pipefish, Yellow-banded Pipefish, Species or species Network Pipefish [66200] habitat may occur within area Corythoichthys haematopterus Reef-top Pipefish [66201] Species or species habitat may occur within area Corythoichthys intestinalis Australian Messmate Pipefish, Banded Pipefish Species or species [66202] habitat may occur within area Corythoichthys ocellatus Orange-spotted Pipefish, Ocellated Pipefish Species or species [66203] habitat may occur within area Corythoichthys paxtoni Paxton's Pipefish [66204] Species or species habitat may occur within area Corythoichthys schultzi Schultz's Pipefish [66205] Species or species habitat may occur within area Doryrhamphus excisus Bluestripe Pipefish, Indian Blue-stripe Pipefish, Species or species Pacific Blue-stripe Pipefish [66211] habitat may occur within area Festucalex cinctus Girdled Pipefish [66214] Species or species habitat may occur within area Filicampus tigris Tiger Pipefish [66217] Species or species habitat may occur within area Halicampus dunckeri Red-hair Pipefish, Duncker's Pipefish [66220] Species or species habitat may occur within area Halicampus grayi Mud Pipefish, Gray's Pipefish [66221] Species or species habitat may occur within area Halicampus nitidus Glittering Pipefish [66224] Species or species habitat may occur within area Halicampus spinirostris Spiny-snout Pipefish [66225] Species or species habitat may occur within area Hippichthys cyanospilos Blue-speckled Pipefish, Blue-spotted Pipefish Species or species [66228] habitat may occur within area Hippichthys heptagonus Madura Pipefish, Reticulated Freshwater Pipefish Species or species [66229] habitat may occur within area Name Threatened Type of Presence Hippichthys penicillus Beady Pipefish, Steep-nosed Pipefish [66231] Species or species habitat may occur within area Hippocampus bargibanti Pygmy Seahorse [66721] Species or species habitat may occur within area Hippocampus kuda Spotted Seahorse, Yellow Seahorse [66237] Species or species habitat may occur within area Hippocampus planifrons Flat-face Seahorse [66238] Species or species habitat may occur within area Hippocampus zebra Zebra Seahorse [66241] Species or species habitat may occur within area Lissocampus runa Javelin Pipefish [66251] Species or species habitat may occur within area Micrognathus andersonii Anderson's Pipefish, Shortnose Pipefish [66253] Species or species habitat may occur within area Micrognathus brevirostris thorntail Pipefish, Thorn-tailed Pipefish [66254] Species or species habitat may occur within area Nannocampus pictus Painted Pipefish, Reef Pipefish [66263] Species or species habitat may occur within area Solegnathus hardwickii Pallid Pipehorse, Hardwick's Pipehorse [66272] Species or species habitat may occur within area Solenostomus cyanopterus Robust Ghostpipefish, Blue-finned Ghost Pipefish, Species or species [66183] habitat may occur within area Solenostomus paegnius Rough-snout Ghost Pipefish [68425] Species or species habitat may occur within area Solenostomus paradoxus Ornate Ghostpipefish, Harlequin Ghost Pipefish, Species or species Ornate Ghost Pipefish [66184] habitat may occur within area Syngnathoides biaculeatus Double-end Pipehorse, Double-ended Pipehorse, Species or species Alligator Pipefish [66279] habitat may occur within area Trachyrhamphus bicoarctatus Bentstick Pipefish, Bend Stick Pipefish, Short- Species or species tailed Pipefish [66280] habitat may occur within area Mammals Dugong dugon Dugong [28] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Reptiles Acalyptophis peronii Horned Seasnake [1114] Species or species habitat may occur within area Aipysurus duboisii Dubois' Seasnake [1116] Species or species habitat may occur within Name Threatened Type of Presence area Aipysurus eydouxii Spine-tailed Seasnake [1117] Species or species habitat may occur within area Aipysurus laevis Olive Seasnake [1120] Species or species habitat may occur within area Astrotia stokesii Stokes' Seasnake [1122] Species or species habitat may occur within area Caretta caretta Loggerhead Turtle [1763] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Chelonia mydas Green Turtle [1765] Vulnerable Breeding known to occur within area Crocodylus porosus Salt-water Crocodile, Estuarine Crocodile [1774] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback Turtle, Leathery Turtle, Luth [1768] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Disteira kingii Spectacled Seasnake [1123] Species or species habitat may occur within area Disteira major Olive-headed Seasnake [1124] Species or species habitat may occur within area Emydocephalus annulatus Turtle-headed Seasnake [1125] Species or species habitat may occur within area Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill Turtle [1766] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Hydrophis elegans Elegant Seasnake [1104] Species or species habitat may occur within area Lapemis hardwickii Spine-bellied Seasnake [1113] Species or species habitat may occur within area Laticauda colubrina a sea krait [1092] Species or species habitat may occur within area Laticauda laticaudata a sea krait [1093] Species or species habitat may occur within area Lepidochelys olivacea Olive Ridley Turtle, Pacific Ridley Turtle [1767] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Natator depressus Flatback Turtle [59257] Vulnerable Breeding known to occur within area Pelamis platurus Yellow-bellied Seasnake [1091] Species or species habitat may occur within area Whales and other Cetaceans [ Resource Information ] Name Status Type of Presence Mammals Balaenoptera acutorostrata Minke Whale [33] Species or species habitat may occur within area Balaenoptera edeni Bryde's Whale [35] Species or species habitat may occur within area Balaenoptera musculus Blue Whale [36] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area Delphinus delphis Common Dophin, Short-beaked Common Species or species Dolphin [60] habitat may occur within area Grampus griseus Risso's Dolphin, Grampus [64] Species or species habitat may occur within area Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback Whale [38] Vulnerable Breeding known to occur within area Orcaella brevirostris Irrawaddy Dolphin [45] Species or species habitat may occur within area Orcinus orca Killer Whale, Orca [46] Species or species habitat may occur within area Sousa chinensis Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin [50] Species or species habitat may occur within area Stenella attenuata Spotted Dolphin, Pantropical Spotted Dolphin [51] Species or species habitat may occur within area Tursiops aduncus Indian Ocean Bottlenose Dolphin, Spotted Species or species Bottlenose Dolphin [68418] habitat likely to occur within area Tursiops truncatus s. str. Bottlenose Dolphin [68417] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Extra Information Places on the RNE [ Resource Information ] Note that not all Indigenous sites may be listed. Name State Status Natural Rundle Range Natural Area QLD Identified Place Castletower National Park Extension QLD Indicative Place Dan Dan State Forest QLD Indicative Place Mount Larcom Range QLD Indicative Place Balaclava Island and The Narrows QLD Registered Bustard Bay Area QLD Registered Castletower National Park (1978 boundary) QLD Registered Curtis Island (part) QLD Registered Garden Island Environmental Park QLD Registered Great Barrier Reef Region QLD Registered Great Barrier Reef Region ( Commonwealth ) QLD Registered Name State Status Historic Civic Theatre QLD Identified through State processes Our Lady of the Sea Catholic Church QLD Indicative Place Sea Hill Point Lighthouse QLD Indicative Place Cape Capricorn Lighthouse QLD Registered St Lukes Anglican Church QLD Registered

State and Territory Reserves [ Resource Information ] Name State Boyne Island QLD Calliope QLD Cape Capricorn QLD Castle Tower QLD Colosseum Inlet QLD Colosseum Inlet QLD Curtis Island QLD Curtis Island QLD Curtis Island QLD Dan Dan QLD Fitzroy River QLD Flat Top Range QLD Futter Creek QLD Garden Island QLD Great Barrier Reef Coast QLD MacKenzie Island QLD Pindari QLD Port of Gladstone - Rodds Bay QLD Rodds Bay QLD Rundle Range QLD Rundle Range QLD Southend QLD Wietalaba (Recovery) QLD Wild Cattle Island QLD

Invasive Species [ Resource Information ] Weeds reported here are the 20 species of national significance (WoNS), along with other introduced plants that are considered by the States and Territories to pose a particularly significant threat to biodiversity. The following feral animals are reported: Goat, Red Fox, Cat, Rabbit, Pig, Water Buffalo and Cane Toad. Maps from Landscape Health Project, National Land and Water Resouces Audit, 2001. Name Status Type of Presence Frogs Bufo marinus Cane Toad [1772] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Mammals Capra hircus Goat [2] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Felis catus Cat, House Cat, Domestic Cat [19] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Oryctolagus cuniculus Rabbit, European Rabbit [128] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Sus scrofa Pig [6] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Vulpes vulpes Red Fox, Fox [18] Species or species habitat likely to occur Name Status Type of Presence within area Plants Acacia nilotica subsp. indica Prickly Acacia [6196] Species or species habitat may occur within area Alternanthera philoxeroides Alligator Weed [11620] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Cabomba caroliniana Cabomba, Fanwort, Carolina Watershield, Fish Species or species Grass, Washington Grass, Watershield, Carolina habitat likely to occur Fanwort, Common Cabomba [5171] within area Chrysanthemoides monilifera Bitou Bush, Boneseed [18983] Species or species habitat may occur within area Cryptostegia grandiflora Rubber Vine, Rubbervine, India Rubber Vine, India Species or species Rubbervine, Palay Rubbervine, Purple Allamanda habitat likely to occur [18913] within area Hymenachne amplexicaulis Hymenachne, Olive Hymenachne, Water Stargrass, Species or species West Indian Grass, West Indian Marsh Grass habitat likely to occur [31754] within area Lantana camara Lantana, Common Lantana, Kamara Lantana, Species or species Large-leaf Lantana, Pink Flowered Lantana, Red habitat likely to occur Flowered Lantana, Red-Flowered Sage, White within area Sage, Wild Sage [10892] Parkinsonia aculeata Parkinsonia, Jerusalem Thorn, Jelly Bean Tree, Species or species Horse Bean [12301] habitat likely to occur within area Parthenium hysterophorus Parthenium Weed, Bitter Weed, Carrot Grass, False Species or species Ragweed [19566] habitat likely to occur within area Prosopis spp. Mesquite, Algaroba [68407] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Rubus fruticosus aggregate Blackberry, European Blackberry [68406] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Salix spp. except S.babylonica, S.x calodendron & S.x reichardtii Willows except Weeping Willow, Pussy Willow and Species or species Sterile Pussy Willow [68497] habitat likely to occur within area Salvinia molesta Salvinia, Giant Salvinia, Aquarium Watermoss, Species or species Kariba Weed [13665] habitat likely to occur within area Nationally Important Wetlands [ Resource Information ] Name State Colosseum Inlet - Rodds Bay QLD Fitzroy River Delta QLD Great Barrier Reef Marine Park QLD Northeast Curtis Island QLD Port Curtis QLD The Narrows QLD Coordinates -23.5275 150.7012,-23.4098 151.18789,-23.5399 151.58761,-24.0802 151.5927,-24.29667 151.19305,-24.12027 150.81138,-23.5275 150.7012

Caveat The information presented in this report has been provided by a range of data sources as acknowledged at the end of the report. This report is designed to assist in identifying the locations of places which may be relevant in determining obligations under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It holds mapped locations of World Heritage and Register of National Estate properties, Wetlands of International Importance, Commonwealth and State/Territory reserves, listed threatened, migratory and marine species and listed threatened ecological communities. Mapping of Commonwealth land is not complete at this stage. Maps have been collated from a range of sources at various resolutions.

Not all species listed under the EPBC Act have been mapped (see below) and therefore a report is a general guide only. Where available data supports mapping, the type of presence that can be determined from the data is indicated in general terms. People using this information in making a referral may need to consider the qualifications below and may need to seek and consider other information sources.

For threatened ecological communities where the distribution is well known, maps are derived from recovery plans, State vegetation maps, remote sensing imagery and other sources. Where threatened ecological community distributions are less well known, existing vegetation maps and point location data are used to produce indicative distribution maps.

For species where the distributions are well known, maps are digitised from sources such as recovery plans and detailed habitat studies. Where appropriate, core breeding, foraging and roosting areas are indicated under 'type of presence'. For species whose distributions are less well known, point locations are collated from government wildlife authorities, museums, and non-government organisations; bioclimatic distribution models are generated and these validated by experts. In some cases, the distribution maps are based solely on expert knowledge.

Only selected species covered by the following provisions of the EPBC Act have been mapped: - migratory and - marine The following species and ecological communities have not been mapped and do not appear in reports produced from this database: - threatened species listed as extinct or considered as vagrants - some species and ecological communities that have only recently been listed - some terrestrial species that overfly the Commonwealth marine area - migratory species that are very widespread, vagrant, or only occur in small numbers The following groups have been mapped, but may not cover the complete distribution of the species: - non-threatened seabirds which have only been mapped for recorded breeding sites - seals which have only been mapped for breeding sites near the Australian continent Such breeding sites may be important for the protection of the Commonwealth Marine environment. Acknowledgements This database has been compiled from a range of data sources. The department acknowledges the following custodians who have contributed valuable data and advice: -Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, New South Wales -Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria -Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania -Department of Environment and Natural Resources, South Australia -Parks and Wildlife Service NT, NT Dept of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts -Environmental and Resource Management, Queensland -Department of Environment and Conservation, Western Australia -Department of the Environment, Climate Change, Energy and Water -Birds Australia -Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme -Australian National Wildlife Collection -Natural history museums of Australia -Museum Victoria -Australian Museum -SA Museum -Queensland Museum -Online Zoological Collections of Australian Museums -Queensland Herbarium -National Herbarium of NSW -Royal Botanic Gardens and National Herbarium of Victoria -Tasmanian Herbarium -State Herbarium of South Australia -Northern Territory Herbarium -Western Australian Herbarium -Australian National Herbarium, Atherton and Canberra -University of New England -Ocean Biogeographic Information System -Australian Government, Department of Defence -State Forests of NSW -Geoscience Australia -CSIRO -Other groups and individuals

The Department is extremely grateful to the many organisations and individuals who provided expert advice and information on numerous draft distributions.

Please feel free to provide feedback via the Contact Us page.