PO BOX 505E EARLVILLE QLD 4870 P: 07 4033 2454 F: 07 4033 5810 E:[email protected] W: www.cairnsnaturalspringwater.com.au

To the Director, Queensland Section | Environment Assessment Branch Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601

Attention: Ms Alana Hazel

Dear Alana, Request for Preliminary Documentation, Cairns Natural Spring Water, Commercial Development, Maconachie Street, East Woree, Cairns. EPBC Ref: 2008/4338 of 13 September 2010 refers. As requested, please find attached documents as follows: 1. Cover letter 2. Part 1. Original Referral and associated information submitted to the department; 3. Part 2. Request for Preliminary Documentation letter (13.09.10); and 4. Part 3. Response to Request for Preliminary Documentation letter (13.09.10) including attachments

Regards,

Stephen Sercombe ‐ Director

18 August 2012

CAIRNS NATURAL SPRING WATER INCORPORATING CHAMPION ORGANIC SPRING WATER & CHAMPION COOLING & FILTRATION

Request for Preliminary Documentation, Cairns Natural Spring Water, Commercial Development, Maconachie Street, East Woree, Cairns. EPBC Ref: 2008/4338 of 13 September 2010 refers.

Cover letter

The attached documents detail our response to the above request. The extensive chronology of information exchange between Federal and State government agencies since our original referral on 23 June 2008 is well summarized in previous reports to DEWHA/ SEWPaC. There are, nonetheless, several key historical factors to consider when viewing this response:

Sequential surveys by different observers clearly confused the conservation status of Lot 52 Woree. Although this status is now largely resolved, the process has been at considerable financial cost to CNSW, that in hindsight, may have been largely avoided.

Lot 52 Woree originally contained two plant species listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under the EPBC Act, namely the Hair sedge Eleocharis retroflexa and the Ant Plant Myrmecodia beccarii, both requiring appropriate translocation procedures and biodiversity offsets. While both species were recorded in limited numbers in Lot 52, the forested habitat identified by the Cairns Regional Council botanist and two consulting ecologists was considered abnormal for the sedge. This view subsequently proved correct as the 50 infertile individuals originally identified by DERM in 24/5/10 were progressively reduced to zero by 2/8/12 due to increased tree cover. In order to satisfy the EPBC control requirement, source material had to be obtained outside Lot 52 from an adjacent Council road verge with an estimated sedge population of more than 315,000 individuals in 54 m2. CNSW nonetheless completed a highly successful translocation experiment of both the Ant Plant and the sedge, acquiring in the process, new and significant ecological information about the latter.

Despite setbacks encountered previously in the preliminary documentation, it should be noted that CNSW has at every stage endeavoured to comply with the EPBC control requirements. DEHP (Cairns) has informed us they will assist with publication display of the Preliminary Documentation once approved. We trust the attached documentation will lead to a rapid and positive conclusion.

Stephen Sercombe ‐ Director

18 August 2012

CAIRNS NATURAL SPRING WATER INCORPORATING CHAMPION ORGANIC SPRING WATER & CHAMPION COOLING & FILTRATION

Acronyms

ANBG Australian National Botanic Gardens, Canberra ANU Australian National University ATH Australian Tropical Herbarium CBG Cairns Botanic Gardens CBM Center for Biodiversity Management CNSW Cairns Natural Spring Water CRC Cairns Regional Council CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organization DEHP Department of Environment and Heritage Protection DERM Department of Environment and Resource Management (Qld) DEWHA Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra EPBC Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 NCA Nature Conservation Act 1994 NP National Park QPWS Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service RPS RPS Group Plc SEWPaC Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities UNE University of New England VMA Vegetation Management Act 1999 (Qld)

Contents

Part 1. Original referral and additional information.

Part 2. Request for Preliminary Documentation Cairns Natural Spring Water, Commercial Development, Maconachie Street, East Woree, Cairns (EPBC 2008/4338).

Part 3. Response to Request for Preliminary Documentation Cairns Natural Spring Water, Commercial Development, Maconachie Street, East Woree, Cairns (EPBC 2008/4338).

CAIRNS NATURAL SPRING WATER INCORPORATING CHAMPION ORGANIC SPRING WATER & CHAMPION COOLING & FILTRATION

Part One

Original referral and additional information

1. Original referral The original referral (Ref: EPBC 2008/4338, 23/June/2008) is attached as Annex I

2. Chronology of key events following original referral Only key events are listed here (Table 1.1). A more extensive chronology prior to February 2012 is summarized in previous reports. This does not include additional information from DEWHA acquired through freedom of information.

Table 1.1 Chronology of key events

Date Action 7 April 2008 An application for the reconfiguration of a lot for the site was submitted by Conics (a consulting company now known as RPS Group) on behalf of Cairns Natural Spring Water to Cairns Regional Council (CRC).

14 July 2008 Referral dated 23 June 2008 submitted to DEWHA concerning on-site management of Myrmecodia beccarii. (EPBC 2008/4338) 7 Aug. 2008. Advice received from DEWHA that the proposed development did not require a controlled action and that as such no further action was required.

5 Sept. 2008 An Application to Clear Protected Plants under Section 89(1) of the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NCA) was submitted to QPWS in regard to the relocation of M. beccarii from the site. The application was amended in October 2008 to include Macaranga polyadenia (listed as rare) and Eleocharis retroflexa - two species that had been observed by field staff of DERM and CRC on Lot 52. After the discovery of Eleocharis retroflexa on the site (listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act), DEWHA confirmed that a separate referral for this species was not required to be submitted to the department, and that their original decision (i.e. not a controlled action) stands. The application was amended in October 2008 to include Macaranga polyadenia (listed as rare) and Eleocharis retroflexa - two species that had been observed by a third party as occurring on the site. 13 Oct. 2008 Development approval issued by CRC for the proposed development.

24 May 2009 Inspection report by B. Wannan DERM identified 50 infertile E. retroflexa plants in Lot 52 using stem morphology. Inspection excluded analysis of adjacent roadside area with estimated 20,000 to 25,000 mainly fertile plants referred to in CONICS report (subsequently estimated at >315,000).

1

Date Action 28 August 2009 Letter from CRC offering to arrange tranlocation of E. retroflexa plants if needed, possibly to Catanna conservation area.

5 August 2010 On the basis of DERM report of 24/5/09, advice was received from DEWHA revoking earlier decision that there should be no controlled action and substituting a new decision under Subsection 75(1) and Section 87 of the EPBC Act. The decision stated that the Project would require assessment and approval under the EPBC Act before it can proceed. 13 Sept 2010 Advice received from M. Coleavy DEWHA requesting further information 19 Oct. 2010 Consultant A.N.Gillison appointed by CNSW to undertake targeted ecological survey of E. retroflexa and M. beccarii on Lot 52. 9 Nov. 2010 Updated plant listing for Lot 52 received from R.L. Jago CRC advising that Macaranga polyadenia had been de-listed as Rare by the EPBC. 10 Nov. 2010 Field studies undertaken by CBM at Lot 52 and Eubenangee Swamp NP. 19 Nov 2010 New field studies completed by CBM (A.N. Gillison) at Lot 52 2 Dec 2010 Plant Ecological Assessment of Lot 52 C19830 East Woree by consultant A.N. Gillison. Report (No. 2010.25.11)submitted to DEWHA 14 Jan 2011 Request from DEWHA requesting further information and clarification of Report No. 2010.25.11 27 Sept 2011 Application to DERM for Scientific Purposes permit to undertake translocation of Sedge and Ant Plant 1 Feb 2012 Meeting with SEWPaC, DERM, CRC and CNSW personnel at Lot 52 Woree 23 Feb 2012 Scientific Research Permit issued by DERM to undertake translocation of Eleocharis retroflexa and Myrmecodia beccarii. 18 June 2012 Report to SEWPaC on successful translocation of sedge and Ant plant at CBG 27 July 2012 Advice received from SEWPaC concerning resubmission of Preliminary Documentation

3. Additional figures as a supplement to Annex I

Figures 1, 2 provide an outline of Lot 52 Woree within the context of a surrounding industrial complex.

2

3.

Fig. 1 Outline of Lot 52 Woree (in red box) within industrial area showing subdivisions.

3

M

Fig. 2 Satellite (2010) view of Lot 52 in upper section showing swamp forest remnant and similar vegetation type within the Cairns Golf Club in the foreground. Red striped ellipses indicate dense swards of Eleocharis retroflexa. Arrows indicate a potential and continuing source of runoff contaminants from adjacent commercial stockpiles of organic mulch. Red dots and lines indicate survey transects T1, T2 (for survey report see CNSW 2010 and CONICS 2009). Letter M in red circle indicates potential mangrove biodiversity offset and translocation site for Ant Plants removed from Lot 52 as part of proposed forward conservation plan (DEHP).

4

Annex I

Original referral of proposed action (Ref: EPBC 2008/4338)

5

Part Two

Request for Preliminary Documentation Cairns Natural Spring Water, Commercial Development, Maconachie Street, East Woree, Cairns (EPBC 2008/4338).

Follow up advice was received from SEWPaC on July 27 2012 regarding the request from M. Coleavy (13 Sept. 2010) in the following attachment.

A detailed response to this request is contained in Part Three of this document.

Part Three

Response to Request for Preliminary Documentation Cairns Natural Spring Water, Commercial Development, Maconachie Street, East Woree, Cairns (EPBC 2008/4338). This Part contains two sections: 1. A point-by-point response to the above request as outlined in Part Two of this document. 2. A detailed report expanding much of the information referred to in the request.

Section 1. Point-by-point response

1. Introduction:

In addition to the following, detailed responses to the points raised in the above request are addressed in Section 2 of this Preliminary Documentation here referred to as ‘the Report’. Additional comments inserted below in bold print address queries point by point in line with the above.

2. Comment on Eleocharis retroflexa and Myrmecodia beccarii

Unlike the relatively unknown ecology of the Hair Sedge Eleocharis retroflexa, the ecology, distribution and habitat requirements of the Ant Plant Myrmecodia beccarii are widely known to researchers and horticulturalists. Naturally occurring populations of the Ant Plant are evident in the Cairns Botanic Gardens. Information concerning the Ant Plant is covered in an earlier report1 from which key references are outlined in Annex IV. These comments are supported by comprehensive information already contained in Approved Conservation Advice (s266B of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999)

The following response is therefore directed mainly to queries related to the previously little known ecology and to some extent the taxonomy of Eleocharis retroflexa here referred to as the ‘sedge’.

3. Response to individual points a) Please provide the following information for the Eleocharis retroflexa and the Ant Plant (Myrmecodia beccarii);

1 Plant Ecological Assessment of Lot 52 C19830 East Woree, Report No. 2010.25.11, 2 December 2010

1 i. baseline data on the including regional status, numbers and size of Eleocharis retroflexa and the Ant Plant populations as well as the distribution of any species within the project site and areas of adjacent habitat; Response: All available baseline data are documented in the Report – Sections 1 & 2

ii. a biological and ecological assessment of the requirements of any listed threatened species proposed to be translocated from the site; Response: See Section 2.3 of the Report iii. information on other known occurrences within 50 km of the project site including estimates of population size, information should be obtained from previous records, fauna databases; Response: See Section 2.3 especially Fig. 7. iv. information on the specific habitat requirements of Eleocharis retroflexa and the Ant Plant which occur on the site and/or are likely to be impacted by the proposed development; Response: See Section 2.3 regarding habitat requirements for Eleocharis retroflexa. v. provide a detailed discussion of the likely benefits of translocation to furthering protection and conservation of the species; Response: See Section 11. Important benefits have been gained by specifically addressing the key research priorities as identified in the Approved Conservation Advice for Eleocharis retroflexa issued under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The research has achieved a more precise assessment of the ecology, reproduction, population dynamics and ecological resilience of the species than was previously known. This was effectively facilitated through successful re-establishment of both sedge and Ant Plant based on controlled nursery and field plantings at the Cairns Botanic Gardens (CBG) under supervision of the Curator, Botanic Reserves, Mr David Warmington.

Of immediate relevance and benefit, the research has confirmed that seed production of the sedge and vegetative propagation trials for both species were satisfactorily achieved using the methods applied in this project, thereby significantly advancing the current knowledge of management of these species, with particular knowledge gain for E. retroflexa. Ongoing genetic (DNA) studies of material from the source population of the sedge now underway in Australia and overseas are expected to clarify more precisely the taxonomic status of this species relative to closely related species other countries in particular SE Asia and Japan. The generous support of the CBG is acknowledged in contributing to the successful re- establishment of both vulnerable species. The successful field establishment (estimated at more than 4,000 individual sedge plants as at 20 July 2012) at the CBG is now signposted at the Centenary Lakes shoreline and clearly visible to the public. The outcome provides a living example of how successful rehabilitation of a vulnerable native plant species can be

2 achieved based on adequate research and informed conservation management. vi. provide information on the likely impacts of the proposal on the long-term persistence and viability for Eleocharis retroflexa and the Ant Plant (Myrmecodia beccarii); Response: It is expected that removal of vegetation from Lot 52 Woree will eliminate all or most of the available habitat for the sedge and the Ant Plant. It is for this reason that successful translocation was pursued and subsequently achieved. vii. evidence that Eleocharis retroflexa and the Ant Plant (Myrmecodia beccarii) can be successfully translocated. Specific and detailed measures must be provided and substantiated, based on best available practices and must include but not be limited to:

 ecological components of the proposed recipient sites, including details of the soil profile, hydrology, aspect, other flora and suitability for maintaining and enhancing populations of any species which are translocated; Response: Preliminary assessment of potential translocation sites was matched against the habitat characteristics of the source site in Woree in particular observed plant species associations and the soil hydrological and soil textural properties (across a gradient from seasonally submerged, mainly anerobic soils to exposed, slighly acidic sandy clay loams). For the sedge these conditions were closely approximated at the translocation site on the Centenary Lakes shoreline with plantings along submerged to dryland gradients. For the Ant Plant, similar habitat characteristics were identified among naturally occuring populations of the same species along mangrove margins in the CBG.

 a detailed risk analysis, based on the best scientific information available which outlines the likely success of any proposed translocations. The risk analysis must be comprehensive and include information on the long-term success of previous translocations of the species; Response: The successful outcome of the translocation experiment for both species has justified any risk entailed in the project, details of which are dealt with in Sections 4-10 of the Report.

 in the event that information on the success of previous translocations is not available, provide the results of any translocation trials which demonstrate successful translocation and long-term persistence of the species and observations of successful propagation and reproduction;

Response: See Sections 4-10 in the Report.  identify any post- translocation management, monitoring reporting and

3 thresholds for implementing further actions to ensure long-term persistence of the species at the recipient site. Response: The Curator CBG has kindly agreed to monitor and nurture translocation sites for both the sedge and the Ant Plant. Under the botanic gardens management, site physical conditions for both species are unlikely to change for the foreseeable future. Discussions are also in progress with DEHP Qld. regarding the potential distribution of germplasm from existing potted sedge material to other potential establishment sites, in particular the gardens of the Queensland herbarium, University of New England (Botany Dept) and the Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney. b) In your response, please also provide information on: i. the environmental history of the proponent and the person proposing to take the action;

Response: The environmental history of the the proponent and the person proposing to take the action is compliant with the EPBC (See original Referral in Part One). ii. whether alternatives to this proposed action have been considered. Response: No alternative proposals have been considered and are largely obviated given the successful outcome of the translocation trial.

4

Section 2

Translocation and establishment of Eleocharis retroflexa (Poir.) Urb. and Myrmecodia beccarii Hook. f. for conservation purposes

Andrew N. Gillison (Consulting ecologist)*

Report provided for Cairns Natural Spring Water

11 August 2012

Center for Biodiversity Management Report No. 2012-03-08

* Director, Center for Biodiversity Management P.O. Box 120 Yungaburra 4884 Qld. Email: [email protected] [email protected] tel/fax 07-953224 ABN 65 834 758 863

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. This report includes an expanded review of the ecological status of the Hairsedge Eleocharis retroflexa and the Ant Plant Myrmecodia beccarii together with the outcome of a translocation trial of both species. The report is presented in line with requirements by SEWPaC (2008/4338 13/09/2010).

2. A survey of Lot 52 Maconachie St Woree conducted on 2/08/12 was unable to detect any remaining plants of the original Eleocharis retroflexa population. The species loss appears to be due to shading by increased natural tree cover. As an alternative source, the Cairns Regional Council assisted with the extraction of material from a declining sedge population on the adjacent Jackson Drive road verge outside Lot 52.

3. As described under Methods, with the assistance of Cairns Botanic Gardens (CBG) and DERM2 personnel, 5 specimens of Myrmecodia beccarii were translocated from Lot 52 Maconachie street to a natural community containing the same species in the CBG. On 7/3/12, 150 sedge plants were established in a pot experiment under controlled greenhouse conditions. Another 150 were planted along the shoreline of Centenary Lakes of the CBG. Initial counts of culms (stems) of sedges were taken at establishment together with field notes and photographic records of both species.

4. Twenty days after translocation growth response exceeded the minimal criteria required by DERM3 with an initial biodiversity offset ratio > 5:1, (now estimated at > 50:1). All Ant Plants continue to establish successfully and exhibit active root and shoot growth together with colonies of the ant symbiont Iridomyrmex cordatus.

5. DERM personnel were present at all stages of translocation and growth assessment.

6. As well as a field survey of the sedge, the taxonomy of both species, but especially Eleocharis retroflexa, was reviewed with assistance from specialists in Australia and the USA. DNA from sedge material from the source location is currently being examined in the USA to further clarify the taxonomy within Australia and elsewhere.

7. The results meet all criteria for success specified by DERM. Preparation for translocation, subsequent establishment and experimentation satisfy the guidelines in Vallee et al. (2004) as required by SEWPaC. New ecological information acquired during this experiment will be submitted as a peer-reviewed research article.

8. Ongoing discussions with staff from the CBG and Cairns Regional Council are focused on communicating the results of this experiment to the wider public and conservation community together with educational material.

2 Now Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) 3 Response must indicate greater than 30% increase in culm count for more than 70% of sets and less than 30% mortality of sets – see methods in Section 3.1 below).

6

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

In order to provide some background perspective, this document is prefaced by a description of the site locations as well as references to prior documentation leading to this application. Additional notes on the ecology of the sedge Eleocharis retroflexa were contributed by S. Gleed (RPS). Sections 1. to 7. relate to a response to a request from SEWPaC for additional information. Section 3. describes the actual methodology applied in this experiment.

1.1 Location Cairns Natural Spring Water (CNSW) is situated at Lot 52 on C19830 on Maconachie Street, East Woree (Fig.1). The area is already fully serviced with reticulated water, electricity, telecommunications, drainage and sealed road infrastructure. Lot 52 supports remnant vegetation of forest type RE 7.3.5. This community currently supports two plant species of conservation concern namely the sedge Eleocharis retroflexa and an epiphytic, myrmecophilous (ant-loving) plant Myrmecodia beccarii.

M

Fig. 1 Satellite (2010) view of Lot 52 in upper section showing swamp forest remnant and similar vegetation type within the Cairns Golf Club in the foreground. Red striped ellipses indicate dense swards of Eleocharis retroflexa. Arrows indicate a potential and continuing source of runoff contaminants from adjacent commercial stockpiles of organic mulch. Red dots and lines indicate survey transects T1, T2 (for survey report see CNSW 2010 and CONICS 2009. Letter M in red circle indicates potential mangrove biodiversity offset and translocation site for Ant Plants removed from Lot 62 as part of proposed forward conservation plan (DEHP).

7 1.2 Geology and soils

The assessment area is characterised by Quaternary alluvium with recent beach sands (Fig. 2). Soils derived from this sandy alluvium vary locally in drainage relief and seasonal inundation patterns. A field examination of surface soils revealed similar soil types in both transects. Soils identified in the present study as sandy clay loam are consistent with a previous soil classification (Murtha et al. , 1996) (Fig. 1.3) as belonging to the Clifton Soil Association (Yellow Kandosol, Grey- brown sandy clay loam A1; Bleached A2; mottled brownish yellow and light grey sandy light clay, massive B horizon). Fig. 2 Geology of assessment area indicated in circle. Quaternary alluvium with recent beach sands (QDEX 1964) 1.3 Mapped vegetation types

Lot 52 (Woree 01) and the adjacent Golf Club (GC Woree 02) sites are both ‘Palustrine wetland (e.g. vegetated swamp)’ as Regional Ecosystem (RE) 7.3.5. Remnant vegetation on both sites is mapped in Fig. 3 with a conservation status under Queensland’s Vegetation Management Act 1999 classified as ‘Least concern’, although declared as significant habitat for endangered fauna such as the Southern Cassowary (Casuarius casuarius johnsonii)4. Both Lot 52 and the Golf Club sites support closed forest with some gap openings in the former. While the vegetation at both sites is clearly swamp forest, it is of interest to note that none of the Fig. 3 Woree assessment sites are characterised by sandy listed sub-types of 7.3.5 includes clay loams influenced by seasonal inundation. Darker blue indicates Clifton soil series (Murtha et al. 1996).

4 There is no record of a Cassowary sighting in the Woree area in the past 20 years and the isolated habitat in this busy industrial area renders Cassowary presence highly unlikely.

8 closed forest, the more typical structural associations consisting of open woodland to shrubland.

1.4 Local extent of E. retroflexa

Fig. 4 below indicates conditions where the sedge site has been subject to a variety of impacts caused by regular mowing (Fig. 4A), vehicular wheel tracks (Fig. 4B), and well- intentioned attempts by the CRC to protect the remaining sward (Fig 4C). In 2011, under the influence of increasing natural forest cover in nearby Lot 52 the sedge had all but disappeared (Fig. 4D). A survey of Lot 52 on 2/08/12 was unable to locate any remaining plants of this sedge species. For these reasons, in 2011 the site could not be regarded as an adequate choice of a control site for comparing the experimental performance of E. retroflexa under greenhouse or other external conditions such as plantings along a lakeside. This experimental constraint was later acknowledged by DERM.

A B

C D

Fig. 4 (A) November 2010 Mown sward in Jackson Drive with numerous patches of E. retroflexa but with rapidly invading Sphagneticola trilobata; (B) August 2011 Illustrating extensive damage to sedge area; (C) 2 December 2011 Protective barrier leads to loss of E. retroflexa under competition from taller plants and extensive loss near road margin; (D) December 2011 The only confirmed, yet barely detectable E. retroflexa group of specimens under increasing forest cover in Lot 52 (plants observed as absent as at 2/08/12). 9 2. THE TAXONOMY AND ECOLOGY OF ELEOCHARIS RETROFLEXA

2.1 The taxonomy of Eleocharis retroflexa (Poir.) Urban

Commonly known as Spike Rush or Hair Sedge, Eleocharis retroflexa, Family Cyperaceae, is a tufted, annual sedge growing to 10 cm tall (Fig. 5). Stems (culms) are 3- 4-5 angled, almost submerged with leaves that are reduced to a sheath. Spikelets are 2–3.5 mm long, 1–2 mm wide, with 2–5 flowers. The glumes (small bracts in the spikelets) are in 2 rows with two thirds overlapping, red-brown with green midrib and margins, membranous and keeled. Nuts are white, 0.6–0.7 mm long, 0.5 mm wide, angles ribbed and epidermal cells deeply pitted. Flowering and fruiting occur in May (Kern, 1974; Cowie et al., 2000; Woinarski et al., 2007; EPBC, 2008a,b). However fruiting may occur episodically throughout the year as observed in the Jackson drive population and under nursery conditions (A. Gillison pers. obs. and Fig.5). Taxonomic delimitation of Eleocharis retroflexa is unclear. According to E.H. Roalson5 (pers. comm. 15/3/12) there is good evidence that E. retroflexa is at least 3 different taxonomic entities as currently treated.

Fig. 5 Fertile Eleocharis retroflexa collected from dense roadside sward on Jackson Drive near Lot 52

5 Dr Eric H. Roalson, (geneticist and taxonomist – specialist in sedge taxonomy) School of Biological Sciences Washington State University USA

10 Additional diagnoses in the Flora of North America6 indicate that Eleocharis retroflexa may have 5- as well as 4-angled culms, although sometimes with proliferous culms, or entirely vegetative with rhizomes absent. (See also Ellery, 1983; Lye, 1983; SANBI nd, for vegetative features in Africa). Morphological similarities between E. retroflexa and certain other Cyperaceae such as Fimbristylis species (e.g. F. dichotoma) can make field identification problematic. In a previous survey of Cyperaceae in Lot 52, Wannan (2010) differentiated between infertile plants of both taxa by microscopic examination of culm cross-sections. Subsequent field inspections by A. Gillison showed that the diagnostic feature of Eleocharis retroflexa with typically 4-angled culms and distinct vascular bundles in each corner (cf. Fig. 6) could be readily recognized with a x20 hand lens. While this feature is typical of most specimens of E. retroflexa observed at Woree by Gillison and Gleed in both semi-aquatic and terrestrial habitats it differs from Sharpe & Jessup (1986) who describe E. retroflexa with terete or 3- angled stems and plants not proliferating from spikelets (Box 1). As most accounts of proliferating E. retroflexa indicate that this feature is most frequent in either submerged conditions or on stream Fig. 6 From Ueno et al. (1998) for E. retroflexa margins, it is likely that the HERBRECS subsp. chaetaria (Roem. & Schult.) T. Koyama, collections from Cook examined by showing vascular bundles located in the corners of a 4-angled culm. AC = air cavity and C = specimen Sharpe & Jessup (1986) may have been from a submerged location. restricted to dryland forms. A recent survey by Gillison and Gleed recorded E. retroflexa actively proliferating from spikelets along the margins of the Jackson Drive drain adjacent to running water (Fig.8). The only other record of Eleocharis recorded by Sharpe & Jessup (in draft 1986), proliferating in this way is attributed to E. atricha R.Br. in Southern Queensland.

Box 1 Eleocharis retroflexa (Poir.) Urb. Annual. Plants weak. Stems terete, or 3 - angled; striate; 5-25 cm long; 0.2-0.5 mm wide; not septate. Uppermost leaf sheath orifice loose with no mucro. Spikes consisting of 1 spikelets. Spikelets 2-4.5 mm long; 1.5-2.5 mm wide; pale yellow or stramineous, or reddish brown; ovoid, or globose. Plant not proliferating from spikelets. Stamens 2. Glumes 2-2.5 mm long; acute, or acuminate; with midrib distinct; distinctly hyaline; not red; membraneous. Hypogynus bristles of nut present; 4-6; bristle length three- quarters length of nut, or equal to nut only. Style 3-fid. Style base neck confluent with nut (continuous); one half as long as nut, or three quarters as long as nut; one half as wide as nut. Nut trigonous or triquetrous; 0.9-1.1 mm long; 0.7-0.9 mm wide; ribbed. Nut surface with 0 vertical rows. Nut reticulate (cells often hexagonal); dark brown, or black, or white. Found in fresh water as emergent plants. Recorded from Cook. (HERB BRI (Sharpe & Jessup in draft1986)).

6 http://www.eol.org/pages/1120125

11

2.2 Ecology of Eleocharis retroflexa

2.2.1 Distribution and habitat Eleocharis retroflexa is not endemic to north Queensland or Australia. The species contains a number of subspecies and has a broad-ranging, pantropical distribution (China (Fujian, Guangdong, Hainan, Yunnan), Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Japan (Ryukyu Islands), Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sri Lanka, N Thailand, Vietnam; Africa, North, Central and South America incl. Caribbean, NE, NW Australia, Pacific islands 7,8 . In Australia Eleocharis retroflexa is known only from limited collections in Queensland and the Northern Territory (Fig. 3).

In Queensland (Table 1.) the species is known from the Eubenangee Swamp NP, north of Garradunga, and formerly Blackfellows Creek south of Cairns. In the Northern Territory it is known from two swamps on the Wingate Mountains plateau and a sandstone plateau in Nitmiluk National Park. Eleocharis retroflexa is conserved within Eubenangee Swamp National Park and Nitmiluk National Park (Briggs & Leigh, 1996; Woinarski et al., 2007) (Fig. 7). There is no population and extent of occurrence data available for this species in Australia (Woinarski et al., 2007). The distribution of this species is not known to overlap with any EPBC Act- listed threatened ecological community. According to Woinarski et al. (2007) in the NT, the main potential threats to Eleocharis retroflexa include inappropriate fire regimes and grazing and trampling by high densities of feral animals.

Table 1. HERBRECS collection data for Eleocharis retroflexa*

Bc_Nr Collector Region District Locality Long Lat 45104 Blake S.T. Queensland Cook Eubenangee Swamp N of 145.975 17.4083 Garradunga 45104 Blake S.T. Queensland Cook Eubenangee Swamp N of 145.975 17.4083 Garradunga 45104 Elmer A.D. Malesia Philippines Irosin (Mt Bulussan) Province of * * Sorsogon Luzon 45104 Booth R. Queensland Cook Eubenangee Swamp National 145.978 17.4122 Park 45104 Ryves T.B. America Trinidad Reservoir * * 45104 Hoogland New Gwaiari Village Ca 1km N * * R.D. Guinea 45104 Jago R.L. Queensland Cook Blackfellows Ck Edmonton S of 145.754 17.0083 Cairns (Ex Coll 17 00 30 145 45 15) 45104 Bruhl J.J. Queensland Cook Between Alice River and Swamp 145.975 17.4083 Track W base of lookout 45104 Grayum America Costa Rica South End of Cerros Sardinal (N * *

7 http://hua.huh.harvard.edu/china/mss/volume23/Flora_of_China_Vol_23_Cyperaceae.pdf

8 South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) Plants of Southern Africa Online Checklist 2.5 http://posa.sanbi.org/specieslist.php?PostoptListType=1&optLifeform=Cyperoid&optSortOrder=Family+A SC&pgResult=1

12 Bc_Nr Collector Region District Locality Long Lat M.H. of Rio Sarapiqui Chilamate De Sarapiqul 45104 Jago R.L. Queensland Cook Jackson Drive Swamp at East 145.751 16.9625 Woree, East of Cairns. 45104 Jago R.L. Queensland Cook Eubenangee Swamp 145.981 17.4161 45104 Jago R.L. Queensland Cook Drain along Southern Side of 145.752 16.9597 Jackson Drive Woree 45104 Wannan Queensland Cook Blackfellows Creek Edmonton 145.754 17.0083 B.S. near Cairns 45104 Godwin M. Queensland Cook Eubenangie Swamp NP 145.975 17.4083 45104 Godwin M. Queensland Cook Eubenangie Swamp, Cleared strip 145.992 17.4250 beside boardwalk. 45104 Stanton Queensland Cook Eubenangee Swamp NP 145.975 17.4083 J.P. Mulgrave Shire 45104 Jackson L. Eubenangee National Park * * 45104 Stanton Queensland Cook Eubenangee Swamp NP 145.975 17.4417 J.P. * from HERBRECS, (DERM 2011)

Additional material collected by S. Gleed on 23/8/2011 from Lot 52 (SG600) and from Jackson Drive (SG601, SG603) reveals active vegetative proliferation. The Gleed collection is to be lodged with ATH Cairns.

Fig. 7 Solid circles indicate known distribution of Eleocharis retroflexa in northern Australia. (Source: Atlas of Living Australia 9 )

9 http://www.ala.org.au/explore/species-maps/

13

At Woree, the sedge Eleocharis retroflexa was originally found inside the site close to the Jackson Drive drain. Since the original collection by R. Jago on the site, the sedge has not been found at this location despite several intensive ground searches by a number of field botanists and workers (R. Jago, B. Wannan, A. Gillison, S. Gleed and K. Walsh,). A small group of 55 sterile (infertile) E. retroflexa plants was found in the interior of the site (B. Wanna 2010) in an unusual setting, completely removed from the optimal open sunlit boggy condition where the sedge exists in the Jackson Drive drain. It is not known how these 55 individuals originally established in this atypical habitat. The most recent survey by A. Gillison (2/08/12) was unable to detect any remaining individuals at this location – an ecological response consistent with sedge depletion under increasing tree canopy closure. Exposure to light and adequate moisture supply are important factors when considering the reproductive ecology and dispersal of the species. Leck & Schütz (2005) cite Kern (1974) who states that many seeds of Cyperus, Eleocharis and Scirpus sink in water, but can be secondarily dispersed by running water. This may explain the presence of E. retroflexa as linear bands along sections of the ‘flow path’ of the Jackson Drive drain, and may also indicate that the species emanated from a source nearer the golf course area to the south of the site. E. retroflexa produces fertile spikelets in fully lit situations where the sedge morphology is consistent with taxonomic treatments and descriptions for the species (e.g. Cowie et al. 2000; Kern 1974). It produces plantlets at the terminal ends of the culms when stressed by poor or low light conditions as described above. This habit also occurs when in a partially submerged growing environment and surrounded by taller Fig. 8 Example of active vegetative proliferation from spikelets in growing species. The gross E. retroflexa recorded under semi- aquatic conditions in Jackson morphology of the Drive, Woree and conspicuous in translocation experiments. terrestrial form and the submerged form are similar in many respects to those shown and described by Ueno, et al. (1988) for E. vivipara. The proliferating phenomenon in Eleocharis was originally recorded in N. America in 1894 in E. melanocarpa (Hill, 1898, quoted by Hickler, 2004). It is, however, also present in other species of Eleocharis in Australia (J. Bruhl10 UNE, K. Wilson11 and R. Booth12 pers. comm.). Bruhl (1994) identifies

10 J. Bruhl, Adjunct Associate Professor, Dept Botany, University of New England 11 Karen L. Wilson AM, Senior Research Scientist, National Herbarium of New South Wales

12 R. Booth, taxonomist, Queensland herbarium

14

pseudo-vivipary as a distinct reproductive trait for the Australian species E. caespitosa. According to J. Bruhl UNE (pers. comm. 30/3/12), proliferation in Eleocharis always arises from the axil of the bract and rachilla of a spikelet. Usually it is at least the proximal floral bract/inflorescence bract and the axillary bud that grows, would in a normal spikelet form a flower. In all cases observed so far there is no sign that the growth is from a fruit/seed in the axil, rather there is a shift to vegetative growth at a earlier stage of 'inflorescence' development (see also Soros & Dengler 2001).

E. retroflexa can exist as a completely submerged or emergent hydrophyte or as a terrestrial species in seasonal or permanent swamp margins (Ueno et al., 1998; Kern 1974; Roalson et al., 2010). While Eleocharis retroflexa exhibits specific metabolic pathways as a C4 plant, it has functional characteristics that distinguish it from other cyperaceous species (Ueno et al.1998; Soros and Dengler, 2001). The species is also capable of adapting to different carbon-fixing pathways according to whether plants are entirely submerged or terrestrial (Ueno and Wakayama, 2004). This sedge lacks leaf blades and it is the culms that perform photosynthetic functions. According to Kern (1974, in Indomalesia Eleocharis retroflexa occurs “In wet muddy places: along streams, along humid road-sides, in shallow pools, in rice-fields, 0-1600m…In running water with hairlike stems and proliferous spikelets (E. confervoides of Miquel). In shallow, stagnant water often propagating by recurving or decumbent stems developing young plants in the axils of the glumes.” Based on HERBRECS data (DERM, 2011), personal observations (S. Gleed, A. Gillison, B. Wannan, R. Jago), and detailed floristic checklists compiled for the site (Jago, 2008a), there is a floristic association with Lobelia membranacea, Eriocaulon willdenovianum and Fimbristylis spp. in the Jackson Drive population; and with a Hydrocotyle sp. and Fimbristylis pauciflora at the Eubenangee Swamp NP population. The sedge does not readily produce flowers and fertile spikelets when growing in situations where competition from taller growing plants reduces incoming light. Collections by S. Gleed (this Section) indicate that flowering and fruiting may occur sporadically throughout the year. This was confirmed by collections of fertile material of the sedge in November 2011 (Fig. 5) and May 2012 in the translocated material established at the CBG. When mowed, as is common practice both at the Eubenangee Swamp site, and formerly at the Jackson Drive populations, the sedge produces flowers and spikelets when it is approximately 10 cm high. This mature culm length bearing fertile material corresponds with the taxonomic descriptions for the species (Cowie, et al., 2000). In the absence of artificial modifiers (mowing, slashing) and when shaded, the sedge grows taller to approximately 20 cm, at which stage rudimentary spikelets may develop at the terminus of the culm. From these, plantlets begin to form and as described in the foregoing, the plant is able to ‘proliferate’ (Fig. 8).

2.2.2 Preferred habitat for E. retroflexa

The habitats described above for E. retroflexa in other countries are generally consistent with those observed in north Queensland both at Woree and Eubenangee Swamp NP. An

15

assumed close association of the sedge with Palustrine wetland (e.g. vegetated swamp)’ (such as Regional Ecosystem 7.3.5 dominated by Melaleuca quinquenervia is not supported by the ecological evidence. As indicated above the origin of the 55 individuals of E. retroflexa recorded by B. Wannan (2010) in Lot 52 is not clear but a population may have established originally under a modified type of RE 7.3.5 forest with open canopy (due possibly to local disturbance). Since then, conditions have changed radically under subsequent forest closure resulting in the disappearance of all sedge individuals recorded in previous surveys. This is consistent with an earlier observation by Jago (2088b) that “It is however likely that the quality of the vegetation will decline over a period of years due to changes in hydrology and to the invasion of the area by pest plant species”

All evidence from both Australia and overseas indicates that the sedge prefers open sunlit moist or boggy conditions without competition from tall-growing species above approximately 20 cm in height. These conditions are consistent with high light requirements for C4 plants that include E. retroflexa, and unlike conditions generally evident in Melaleuca swamp forest, especially under canopy closure and increased competition from understorey plants ( J. Bruhl and K. Wilson pers. comm. 17/12/11). While the sedge may persist along naturally occurring drainage margins, at both Woree and Eubenangee Swamp NP there is clear Fig. 9 Mixed low sward of E. retroflexa and Fimbristylis observational evidence pauciflora on mowed strip in Eubenangee Swamp NP bounded by that E. retroflexa and excluded by dominant grasses, mainly Ischaemum sp. responds positively to a management regime that includes light and regular mowing. At Eubenangee Swamp NP it is clear that the sedge would be readily out-competed by adjacent grasses, especially Ischaemum sp. (Fig. 9) if mowing was ceased.

The population of E. retroflexa on this regularly maintained path is the same from which collections of the sedge were made in 1986 (HERBRECS, Bruhl 524B collection). This provides long-term evidence that the sedge is able to tolerate reasonably high levels of disturbance as long as taller growing or more aggressively growing species do not overshadow its preferred environmental niche.

16

2.2.3 Field survey

A detailed account of a comparative ecological survey of Lot 52 Woree and an adjacent area with similar vegetation has already been presented in our preliminary documentation referred to in your letter (2008/4338) of 14 January 2012. (Contrary to the comment in Attachment A. (12) in that letter that no such comparative study was undertaken). Additional field surveys were completed in 2010 (CNSW 2010), May 2011 (A. Gillison), 23 August 2011 (Gillison and Gleed) and 2 August 2012 (Gillison). The region examined included an intensive ground survey of road and sub-coastal swamps in the immediate vicinity of East Woree. A more extensive survey of coastal swamp margins was undertaken as far South as Eubenangee swamp NP and in the Bramston Beach coastal and rear-dune wetland margins. No new locations were identified for the sedge.

2.2.4 Plant density estimates

A single 20 x 20cm sample of living sedge material was extracted from an already heavily damaged location on Jackson Drive (Fig. 4B) on 23 Aug. 2011. This sample revealed 217 readily identifiable individual Eleocharis retroflexa plants. The plants were kept alive under moist conditions and subsequently replanted at the same location. Most of these plants have now disappeared with more recent impacts by vehicular traffic, weed invasion despite well-intentioned site modification (protection) by the Cairns Regional Council.

When extrapolated to the known mapped location of Eleocharis retroflexa in Jackson Drive and based on estimated cover percent of the sedge, a conservative estimate of ~ 315,000 individuals was indicated for this population as at 23 August 2011. This compares with a total of 55 plants previously confirmed by B. Wannan (2010) for Lot 52, that with increased forest cover was reduced to less than ten individuals as at 2 December 2011 (Fig. 4D) (A.N. Gillison & K. Walsh pers. obs.) and that had completely disappeared by 2/08/12 (A.N. Gillison).

A second visit to the Jackson Drive site on 2 December 2011 (A.N. Gillison & K. Walsh) (Table 2) revealed a significant decrease (~ 80%) in the Eleocharis retroflexa population due almost certainly to rapidly invading weeds and to the installation of a protective barrier (Fig. 4C) by the CRC that, in the absence of mowing, resulted in an unintentional increase in the abundance of tall graminoids (mainly Cyperaceae) as well as other herbaceous species, including the invasive Singapore Daisy (Sphagneticola trilobata). These rapidly growing successional species now appear to be out-competing the remaining Eleocharis retroflexa currently estimated at about 40,000 individuals at that time. As indicated in Table 2, count estimates are best considered as broadly indicative given the limited sample, the dynamic nature of the vegetation patches and heterogeneous site conditions. Despite these limitations there is a clear downward trend evident in Table 2 that shows a decrease in plant numbers of ~ 80% representing a loss of about 2500 plants per day over 100 days.

17

Table 2. Estimated counts of Eleocharis retroflexa individuals Jackson Drive, Woree showing rapid decrease with site modification between measurement of E. retroflexa dominated sedge patches taken at 23/8/11 and 2/12/11.

23/8/2011 % ER Actual area Total Patch ID Lat S. Long E. L (m) W (m) Area (m2) cover under ER (m2 ) # ER 1 16.95990 145.75159 9.5 4.2 39.9 80 31.92 173166 2 16.95988 145.75145 10.0 3.5 35.0 65 22.75 123419 3 16.95988 145.75127 3.0 2.0 6.0 40 2.4 13020 4 16.95987 145.75119 1.0 1.5 1.5 70 1.05 5696 Total 315301 Based on 217 Eleocharis retroflexa (ER) individuals in a 20 x 20 cm sample of turf (5425 plants m-2)

Table 2 (continued) 2/12/2011 % ER Actual area Patch ID Lat S. Long E. L (m) W (m) Area (m2) Tot ER cover under ER (m2 ) 1 16.95990 145.75159 7.8 2.5 19.5 45 8.78 47632 2 16.95988 145.75145 3.0 2.5 7.5 35 2.63 14268 3 NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 61900 L = length of patch, W = width of patch, NL = Not Locatable due to apparent competition from invasive weeds and graminoids

3. OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY

Table 3 outlines a series of preparatory phases leading up to and as planned for the trial translocation and propagation of the sedge. Specifically, propagation was designed to satisfy two aims: the first using relatively artificial greenhouse facilities by means of a systematic pot trial to demonstrate that successful establishment outside the source site is possible. If successful, this propagation method would demonstrate that Eleocharis retroflexa is not a species obligated to narrow edaphic conditions. The second propagation trial was to determine whether E. retroflexa could survive as a biodiversity offset by propagation in a natural lakeside environment under assured conservation control.

Table 3. Preparatory phases leading up to translocation, propagation and monitoring of the sedge consistent with Vallee et al. (2004)

Phase Activity Remarks Status 1. Confirm identity of Literature review, particularly relating to E. Completed sedge Eleocharis retroflexa and closely allied taxa. Discussions retroflexa with botanists familiar with the field identification of the sedge (B. Wannan, R. Jago).

18

Phase Activity Remarks Status 2. Survey of known and With S. Gleed (RPS) reconnaissance survey of Completed potential locations of vegetation in the Cairns area and coastal sites as Eleocharis retroflexa far south as Eubenangee Swamp NP. Numerous surveys undertaken of probable habitats in the Woree area of Cairns. 3. Survey and classification Detailed ecological survey using VegClass Completed of vegetation in Lot 52 sampling protocol comparing biophysical Maconachie St and in characteristics of two similarly vegetated surrounding area Melaleuca dominated forests in close proximity with and without Eleocharis retroflexa. Compilation of detailed floristic checklist undertaken by Jago, 2008. 4. Detailed in situ Sequential inspections of Lot 52 and adjacent Completed ecological study of the areas with S. Gleed (RPS) and DERM field staff sedge B. Wannan and K. Walsh. Sequential population sampling and analysis of Eleocharis retroflexa dominant vegetation patches in Lot 52 and Jackson Drive under changing conditions. 5. Literature review of the Contacts with Australian and and overseas Completed known ecology of research institutions and online literature search. Eleocharis retroflexa and related taxa 6. Search for appropriate A number of sites have been considered. Similar Location and translocation and habitat located at Centenary Lakes (Cairns propagation propagation sites Botanic Gardens - CBG). Discussions with D. measures confirmed Warmington, Curator Botanic reserves Cairns re: propagation measures. CBG confirmed as logical site given ongoing guarantees for monitoring and management. Ideal venue for interpretation. 7. Application for Discussion with DERM staff and supporting Continuing Scientific Purposes referees (Dr D. Metcalfe CSIRO, D. Warmington following Research permit CBG). requirement for (DERM) to facilitate additional translocation and information from propagation DERM 8. Identify and locate target As discussed with R. Jago (CRC) and based on Sampling approved sample for sedge current plant density analysis in Jackson Dr., by L. Kirchner, translocation sufficient planting material is available from an General Manager excised 30 x 30 cm section of sedge dominated Corporate Services, turf on Jackson Drive. CRC 6/10/11 9. Propagation Planting design as detailed in Section 3. Confirmed by D. Warmington 19/12/11 10. Monitoring Monitoring design as detailed in Section 3. Implemented 3/3/12 11. Evaluation and reporting As outlined in Sections 3, 6 and 8. Initiated 27/4/12 12. Communication Ongoing for Governmental conservation management agencies, local media and conservation groups. Possible educational module at CBG

19

3.1 Greenhouse propagation

Material for translocation was taken from Jackson Drive in East Woree on 7/3/12. A section of sedge turf 30 x 30 cm containing approximately 430 plants of E. retroflexa was thus available for propagation. In each of 50 x 10 cm plastic pots, individual sets composed of three individual plants were planted under open sunlit conditions using a standard potting mix (Searle’s Premium Potting Mix13 ) provided by the CBG with minimal nutrient addition. Pots were placed in saucers and watered daily to ensure a constant supply of moisture. The propagation method was similar to that applied successfully by Ueno et al. (1998) for a similar proliferating sedge species (E. retroflexa subsp. chaetaria (Roem. & Schult.) T. Koyama) in Japan. No other information was available for the propagation of E. retroflexa. Planting took place on the same day (7/3/12) using the above methodology as previously agreed with D. Warmington (Cairns Botanic Gardens)

3.1.1 Assessment and Monitoring

As proposed in the Permit Application to DERM (Annex I), translocation establishment was initiated on (7/3/12) with culm counts of all plants for each set of three plants. After twenty days (27/3/12) a re-count of all plants was undertaken. Due to the extensive number of culms, for both recording sessions two different lots of 25 sets each were selected at random (with no duplication) from the total 50 sets planted. As required by DERM, success would be indicated by more than 30% increase from original culm count for more than 70% of sets and less than 30% mortality.

Additional data regarding flowering and seed set together with any evidence of culm proliferation was recorded. In addition to the above, each measurement stage was documented with digital photographs for visual comparative purposes. An officer from DERM (K.Walsh) attended at both counts.

3.1.2 Analysis and evaluation

Comparison with a control site: As acknowledged by DERM, rapid invasion by tall grasses and invasive weeds excessive impact by road traffic and rapid and continuing loss of Eleocharis retroflexa at Jackson Drive (Table 2) mitigated against the selection of a control site for comparative purposes. Instead it was agreed by DERM that sufficient performance indicators were likely to be obtained from a well designed field trial. An analysis of the culm counts based on the randomised sample design was undertaken to assess the level of success according to the criteria specified in 3.1.1. above. This part of the experiment was conducted in consultation with Dr K.R.W. Brewer, an internationally renowned statistician from the Australian National University with wide experience in the design and analysis of field trials.

13 http://www.searle.com.au/PottingMixes.html

20

3.2 Propagation on a freshwater lake shoreline (Centenary Lakes CBG)

As with the greenhouse design, individual sets of three plants each were established in the existing lakeside soil substrate 10 cm apart in five rows of 20 sets each with 30 cm row spacing. Each row followed a naturally occurring moisture gradient from damp but otherwise terrestrial conditions to below water line at a site now identified and conserved by CBG. No additional nutrients or watering were applied to this experiment. Minor fluctuations in lake water level occcurred during seasonal rain were considered useful in approximating natural conditions. The site was signposted as a ‘Sensitive Area’ by CBG staff but to date remains otherwise unprotected by artificial means.

3.2.1 Monitoring

As for the greenhouse experiment.

3.2.2 Analysis and evaluation

As for the greenhouse experiment (see Section 3.1.2)

4. OVERVIEW OF CONSISTENCY WITH VALLEE et al. (2004)

As outlined in the main text of this document and summarized in Appendix II, the overall project was designed so as to be consistent with the guidelines proposed by Vallee et al. (2004). A key exception as indicated earlier was the questionable need for a comparative assessment of propagation performance against a highly artificially modified habitat for a ‘non-natural’ sedge population. It was later agreed with DERM that this proviso should be waived given the highly disturbed condition of the source location.

5. OVERVIEW OF MONITORING ARRANGEMENTS

See above in Section 3

6. OVERVIEW OF REPORTING ARRANGEMENTS

Reporting essentially follows the format outlined in the DERM ‘Scientific or Educational Purpose Report’14 together with additional information provided in this document to accommodate requirements by SEWPaC.

6.1 Eleocharis retroflexa

The report contains the following elements: o Background rationale for translocation and propagation o Source locations o New information on taxonomy and ecology of the sedge

14 http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/register/p02027aa.doc

21

o Summary of performance outcomes supported by data in tabular form o Major highlights o Discussion of factors leading to success or failure of project o Implications for management conservation including biodiversity offsets o Communication of results to relevant State and Federal wildlife management agencies, community conservation groups and local media o Potential educational value of this conservation-based project as discussed with D. Warmington, CBG and the Cairns Regional Council o Consideration of publication of results in a peer-reviewed science journal o Listing of key documentation related to the project (reports, literature review, correspondence, images etc.

6.2 Myrmecodia beccarii

As for 6.1 above.

7. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING TRANSLOCATION SUCCESS

As well as the criteria for success determined by DERM, other criteria were adopted as outlined in Vallee et al. 2004. Ch. 7. Box 7.2. (Annex II)

8. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

See Vallee et al. 2004. Ch.8. (Annex II). Continuing community involvement includes the Cairns Regional Council and the CBG as well as DEHP and SEWPaC. As indicated previously, the CBG is considering the result as a conservation case study for educational purposes. Results will be communicated to local conservation groups and the local media.

9. RESULTS

9.1 Field data listings and performance assessment for the Eleocharis retroflexa trial

This section contains original data and summaries about the establishment response of Eleocharis retroflexa under open greenhouse (plant nursery) conditions and Lake shoreline (Figs. 11,12). Photographic examples of translocation and establishment sequences can be viewed in Annex III Fig 1. a,b; Fig. 2a,b, and Fig. 3 a,b. As listed in Table 4, culm (stem) counts at initial planting are tagged as t0, and subsequent and final count tagged as t1. Table 5 lists the size distributions of data from both randomized counts.

22

Table 4. Summary of random field counts from experimental planting of Eleocharis retroflexa at the Cairns Botanic Gardens

Set Lake t0 Lake t0 Lake t1 Lake t1 GH t0 GH t0 GH t1 GH t1 No. culms plantlets culms plantlets culms plantlets culms plantlets 1 22 0 73 0 18 0 * * 2 46 0 * * 15 0 * * 3 * * * * 33 0 * * 4 22 0 * * * * 190 5 5 * * * * * * * * 6 * * 220 5 35 0 * * 7 29 0 * * 27 0 * * 8 48 0 * * * * * * 9 53 0 230 8 22 0 * * 10 30 0 * * 28 0 166 6 11 * * 210 6 33 0 * * 12 49 0 280 11 * * 170 4 13 * * * * * * * * 14 43 0 * * * * * * 15 * * * * * * 210 9 16 39 0 230 7 * * 170 6 17 40 0 * * 39 0 150 4 18 54 0 340 15 24 0 170 4 19 * * * * * * * * 20 46 0 * * * * * * 21 * * 190 8 * * 175 6 22 * * 240 8 25 0 185 4 23 * * * * 21 0 195 7 24 * * 280 10 24 0 * * 25 30 0 220 10 * * 155 3 26 * * * * * * * * 27 24 0 240 5 * * 145 5 28 * * 190 5 * * 155 5 29 * * * * 9 0 176 7 30 33 0 225 4 12 0 * * 31 * * * * 18 0 175 6 32 * * * * 22 0 * * 33 24 0 180 4 * * 185 7 34 39 0 260 6 * * * * 35 * * 220 5 * * 190 5 36 37 0 210 5 * * * * 37 * * * * * * * * 38 * * 180 4 13 0 * * 39 29 0 230 7 23 0 * * 40 * * * * 17 0 * * 41 24 0 * * 28 0 160 5 42 * * 210 4 * * * * 43 * * * * 10 0 165 3 44 * * 210 3 * * * * 45 23 0 * * 16 0 105 4 46 36 0 190 3 * * 105 4 47 * * 190 3 13 0 70 3 48 53 0 * * * * 130 4 49 * * 240 8 23 0 165 4

23

Set Lake t0 Lake t0 Lake t1 Lake t1 GH t0 GH t0 GH t1 GH t1 No. culms plantlets culms plantlets culms plantlets culms plantlets 50 57 0 * * * * 145 5 Total 930 0 5488 154 548 0 4007 125

* Values are based on 2 x 25 random samples of sets taken from 50 original sets (without duplication). ‘Lake’ refers to the experimental shoreline location on Centenary Lakes; GH refers to the CBG greenhouse; ‘t0’and ‘t1’ refer to counts taken at 7/3/12 and 27/3/12 respectively; Plantlets refer to refer to newly established (rooted) plants in soil or on benthic (underwater) substrate arising from proliferating spikelets within each set. Counts exclude all proliferated plantlets not established as at 27/3/12. [‘Note that random samples are themselves random samples: there are 13 Lake cases and 11 GH cases where both measures are given. All 24 show large increases between t0 and t1. The smallest growth ratio is from 22 to 73 and the largest is from 9 to 176. Both the required criteria for success are greatly over-fulfilled’ (K.R.W. Brewer, statistician, pers. comm. 11/5/12)]

Table 5. Size distributions in descending order for both lake and greenhouse treatments. Ratios indicate level of growth response, in all cases > 30%.

No. Lake GH Lake t0 Lake t1 GH t0 GH t1 ratio ratio 1 57 340 5.965 39 210 5.385 2 54 280 5.185 35 195 5.571 3 53 280 5.283 33 190 5.758 4 53 260 4.906 33 190 5.758 5 49 240 4.898 28 185 6.607 6 48 240 5.000 28 185 6.607 7 46 240 5.217 27 176 6.519 8 46 230 5.000 25 175 7.000 9 43 230 5.349 24 175 7.292 10 40 230 5.750 24 170 7.083 11 39 225 5.769 23 170 7.391 12 39 220 5.641 23 170 7.391 13 37 220 5.946 22 166 7.546 14 36 220 6.111 22 165 7.500 15 33 210 6.364 21 165 7.857 16 30 210 7.000 18 160 8.889 17 30 210 7.000 18 155 8.611 18 29 210 7.241 17 155 9.118 19 29 190 6.552 16 150 9.375 20 24 190 7.917 15 145 9.667 21 24 190 7.917 13 145 11.154 22 24 190 7.917 13 130 10.000 23 23 180 7.826 12 105 8.750 24 22 180 8.182 10 105 10.500 25 22 73 3.318 9 70 7.778 Total 930 5488 5.90 548 4007 7.312

24

6000

5000

4000 Lake t 0 3000 Lake t 1 GH t 0 2000 GH t 1 1000

0 Treatment

Fig. 10 Growth response of Eleocharis retroflexa over 20 days (t0 – t1) showing total number of culms from all plants (y axis). ‘Lake’ is lake shoreline; ‘GH’ is CBG greenhouse.

250

200

150 Lake t0 Lake t 1 100 GH t 0

GH t 1 50

0 Treatment

Fig. 11 Growth response for Eleocharis retroflexa over 20 days under lake shoreline and GH nursery treatments showing mean number of culms (stems) arising from all plants (y axis). ‘Lake’ is lake shoreline; ‘GH’ is CBG greenhouse.

25

9.2 Translocation and establishment of Myrmecodia beccarii

Five specimens of the Ant Plant Myrmecodia beccarii were translocated from Lot 52 Woree to a mangrove habitat at the CBG that included a naturally occurring community of the same species (Annex V Fig. 1a,b). Plants were strapped using heavy duty plastic cable ties to the same host tree species (Melaleuca quinquenervia) that occurred at Lot 52 as well as stems of the mangrove tree Lumnitzera racemosa. No additional nutrients were given to the translocated plants. Rapid recovery and active shoot and root growth (Annex V Fig. 2a,b,c) were observed in all plants during the 20 day period 7/3/12 to 27/3/12.

Personal observations from DERM (K. Walsh) and advice from CBG staff are that the translocation can be considered successful.

10. DISCUSSION

Apart from the positive outcomes from the translocation experiment, the overall project has significantly improved our understanding of the ecology of Eleocharis retroflexa. As a result of additional field studies supported directly by CNSW, we know for the first time that, as well as sexual reproduction, this species is capable of vigorous vegetative regeneration via proliferating spikelets. Together with experimental observations where this phenomenon was observed directly, this knowledge has significantly improved capacity for active conservation management of this taxon. We await advice from DEHP as to where potted nursery material at the CBG should be distributed (e.g. to appropriate Australian botanic gardens and research institutions).

A review of the taxonomic and rather limited ecological literature casts some doubt on the taxonomic delimitation of the sedge that exhibits similarities with Eleocharis retroflexa subsp. chataeria that is not recorded in Australia. Observations by A. Gillison also confirm that culms from the Jackson Drive population may be 3-5 angled in addition to the most commonly ocurring 4-angled condition recorded previously and the 3-angled condition recorded in the diagnosis by Sharpe & Jessup (1986). Advice from R. Booth (Queensland Herbarium) indicates that the treatment by Sharpe & Jessup (l.c.) should be regarded as tentative and as work in progress. To help clarify the taxonomic status, DNA studies are being conducted by Dr E.H. Roalson15 in the USA in collaboration with Prof. J. Bruhl (UNE) using material supplied by CNSW from the source location at Woree. In recent email exchanges, Dr K. Wilson of the National Herbarium of NSW has speculated that the unusual regenerative capacity of the sedge compared to other indigenous sedges, together with its limited occurrence in North Queensland is more consistent with an introduced rather than native species.

Because the sedge occurs in open boggy habitats, this raises the possibility of introduction via migratory wading birds. Additional information is needed about the relatively unknown habitat conditions of the species recorded in the Northern Territory although information to date suggests these are likely to be swamp margins. Should DNA studies and further

15 School of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, USA

26

taxonomic revision result in a change in the taxonomic position of Eleocharis retroflexa then this may have implications for its currently declared status as a vulnerable species. As a biodiversity offset the success ratios thus far exceed 5:1 overall and will certainly exceed this level as establishment proceeds (currently ~50:1). At the time of writing the Lakeside sedge population is seeding prolifically as well as spreading via vegetative proliferation.

Positive indications of success can be reported for the translocation and establishment of Myrmecodia beccarii. The successful transfer of Ant Plants is widely known among horticulturalists and the methodology outlined by the Australian National Botanical Gardens for such purposes and applied here appears to be justified. Additional material required for biodiversity offsets (3:1) is readily available as seedlings through local nursery supplies. A mangrove location adjacent to Lot 52 Woree (Fig. 3) suggests a likely location for translocation as it contains a known host tree Lumnitzera racemosa . Mangroves rather than myrtaceous species such as Melaleuca quinquinervia are a preferred option for the Ant Plants given the vulnerability of Melaleuca spp. to the recently introduced Myrtle Rust pathogen.

Fig. 12. Mangrove locality near Lot 52 with Lumnitzera racemosa as potential host tree for translocated Myrmecodia beccarii in proposed conservation plan (See also Fig.1 for location context)

27

11. CONCLUSIONS

The experiment has met all the criteria for success as specified by DERM for Eleocharis retroflexa. Indeed, as stated by K. Brewer in his statistical assessment, the conditional criteria for success are “greatly over-fulfilled”.

Important benefits have been gained by specifically addressing the key research priorities as identified in the Approved Conservation Advice for Eleocharis retroflexa issued under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The research has achieved a more precise assessment of the ecology, reproduction, population dynamics and ecological resilience of the species than was previously known. This was effectively facilitated through successful re-establishment of both sedge and Ant Plant based on controlled greenhouse and field plantings at CBG under supervision of the Curator, Botanic Reserves, Mr David Warmington.

Of immediate relevance and benefit, the research has confirmed that seed production and vegetative propagation trials were satisfactorily achieved using the methods applied in this project, thereby significantly advancing the current knowledge of management of these species, with particular knowledge gain for E. retroflexa. The generous support of the CBG is acknowledged in contributing to the successful re-establishment of both vulnerable species. As a result, the outcome of the project is now visible to the public, providing a living example of how successful rehabilitation of vulnerable native plant species can be achieved based on adequate research and informed conservation management.

12. REFERENCES

Briggs, J.D. & Leigh, J.H. (1996) Rare or Threatened Australian plants, Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research, CSIRO Division of Plant Industry, Canberra, ACT. Bruhl, J.J. (1994) Amphicarpy in the Cyperaceae, with novel variation in the wetland sedge Eleocharis caespitosissima Baker. Australian Journal of Botany 42, 441–448. CNSW (Cairns Natural Spring Water) (2010) Plant Ecological Assessment of Lot 52 C19830 East Woree. Report No. 2010.25.11 submitted by Center for Biodiversity Management Yungaburra Qld. CONICS (2009) Draft Management Plan for the Translocation of Eleocharis retroflexa Located on Lot 52 on C19830, Woree. Ref: 10194 (R65272). [Report submitted to CNSW September 2009]. Cowie, I. and Kerrigan, R. (2006). Threatened Species of the Northern Territory Factsheet – Eleocharis retroflexa. Parks and Wildlife Commission, Northern Territory. Cowie, I.D., Short, P.S. & Osterkamp Madsen, M . (2000) Floodplain Flora: A flora of the coastal floodplains of the Northern Territory, Australia, Flora of Australia Supplementary Series 10, Australian Biological resources Study, Canberra. DERM (2011). HERBRECS specimen label data for Eleocharis retroflexa. Queensland Herbarium, Department of Environment and Resource Management, Brisbane. DERM nd. Vegetation Management Act 1999. Essential Regrowth Habitat Database version 2.1a

28

http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/vegetation/pdf/regrowth_essential_habitat_database.pdf Accessed 12 Nov. 2010 DERM The Regional Ecosystem Description Database (REDD) (2010) that shows 7.3.5 as a RE of ‘Least concern’ and Biodiversity staus as ‘endangered’ but with status ‘under review’. While RE 7.3.5 includes closed forest, none of the six subdivisions contains any closed forest but rather open forest, woodland and shrubland. See also REDD file xls Lists 7.3.5 area as 8,760 ha. Ellery, W.N. (2003) Plant species recorded from the Okavango Delta Appendix 7 Aquatic Ecosystems of the Okavango Delta, Botswana. In: Alonso, L.E. and L. Nordin (editors). 2003. A rapid biological assessment of the aquatic ecosystems of the Okavango Delta, Botswana: High Water Survey. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment 27. Conservation International, Washington, DC. http://www.orc.ub.bw/data/Flora_species_recorded_Ellery_Aquarap1_2000App7.pd f EPBC (2008a) Approved Conservation Advice for Eleocharis retroflexa. (s266B of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999). 16/12/2008 http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/23672- conservation-advice.pdf . EPBC (2008b) Approved Conservation Advice for Myrmecodia beccarii. (s266B of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999). 16/12/2008 http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/11852- conservation-advice.pdf Hickler, Matthew G. (2004). Eleocharis microcarpa var. filiculmis (tiny-fruited spikerush) Conservation and Research Plan for New England. New England Wild Flower Society, Framingham, Massachusetts, USA. Hill, E. J. (1898). Eleocharis melanocarpa, a proliferous plant. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 25, 392-394. Jago, R.L. (2008a) Floristic Checklist of Plants Occurring on Lot 52 C19830. Cairns Regional Council, Cairns. Jago, R.L. (2008b) Memo from R.L. Jago, Environment Officer CRC to Sarah Cook, Planning Officer CRC 17 October 2008. Re: Inspection of Lot 52 on C19830 52-84 Maconachie Street, East Woree. File No. 8/8/526-01. Kern, J.H. (1974). Cyperaceae. In: van Steenis, C.G.G.J. (Ed.), Flora Malesiana. Noordhoff International Publishing, Leyden. Ser. 1, 7, 435–753. Leck, M.A. & Schütz, W. (2005). Regeneration of Cyperaceae, with particular reference to seed ecology and seed banks. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 7: 95-133 Lye, K. A. (1983), Studies in African Cyperaceae 27. Miscellaneous new taxa and combinations. Nordic Journal of Botany, 3, 241–244. doi: 10.1111/j.1756- 1051.1983.tb01072.x Murtha, G.G. Cannon, M.G. and Smith C.G. (1996) Soils of Babinda – Cairns Area, North Queensland. CSIRO Division of Soils and Department of Primary Industries, Queensland. https://qdex.deedi.qld.gov.au/qdexnew/portal/site/qdex QDEX (1964) Queensland Digital Exploration Reports. Geological Survey of Queensland. Cairns Sheet SE55-02 First Edition 1964. Department of Mines and Energy. https://qdex.deedi.qld.gov.au/qdexnew/portal/site/qdex/

29

Roalson, E.H., Hinchcliff, C.E., Trevisan, R., & da Silva, C.R.M. (2010) Phylogenetic relationships in Eleocharis (Cyperaceae): C4 photosynthesis origins and patterns of diversification in the spikerushes. Systematic Botany 35, 257-271. Sharpe, P.R. (1986). Keys to Cyperaceae, Restionaceae & Juncaceae of Queensland. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane. Soros, C.L. & Dengler, N.G. (2001) Ontogenetic derivation and cell differentiation in photosynthetic tissues of C3 and C4 Cyperaceae. American Journal of Botany 88, 992–1005. SANBI nd (South African National Biodiversity Institute) Plants of Southern Africa Online Checklist 2.5 http://posa.sanbi.org/specieslist.php?PostoptListType=1&optLifeform=Cyperoid&op tSortOrder=Family+ASC&pgResult=1 Eleocharis retroflexa (Poir.) Urb. Subsp. subutilissima (Nelmes) Lye. Annual. Cyperoid, emergent hydrophyte, helophyte, herb Ht. 0.02-0.05m Alt (?) – 1000m B, FSA (Botswana, Southern Africa Flora) Ueno, O. and Wakayama, M. (2004). Cellular expression of C 3 and C 4 photosynthetic enzymes in the amphibious sedge Eleocharis retroflexa ssp . chaetaria. Journal of Plant Research 117, 433 – 441 . Ueno, O., Takeda, T., Samejima, M. & Kondo, A. (1998) photosynthetic characteristics of an Amphibious C4 Plant, Eleocharis retroflexa ssp. Chaetaria. Plant Production Science 1, 165-173. Vallee, L, Hogbin, T., Monks, L. , Makinson, B. , Matthes, M., and Rossetto, M. (2004) Guidelines for the Translocation of Threatened Plants in Australia. Second Edition, Australian Network for Plant Conservation, Canberra Wannan, B. (2010) Inspection Report for Eleocharis retroflexa on Lot 52 C19830. DERM 24 May 2010 (Unpubl. Internal report) Woinarski, J, Pavey, C, Kerrigan, R, Cowie, I, & Ward, S (Eds.), (2007) Lost from our landscape: threatened species of the Northern Territory. Northern Territory Government, Darwin.

30

Annex I Methodology and personnel involved in translocation experiment

31

Annex I (Continued)

32

Annex II

Translocation and propagation consistency with guidelines in Vallee et al. (2004)

Vallee Checklist for determining whether to translocate Ref: A decision regarding whether or not to translocate should not be made until all the following questions have been answered: Ch. 2  Have all alternative management options been attempted or considered (Section 2.2.1)? YES  Is the taxonomic status of the taxon certain (Section 2.2.2)? YES  Is the distribution of the taxon adequately understood as outlined in Section 2.2.3? YES  Are threatening processes understood and can they be controlled (Section 2.2.4)? YES  Have potential suitable recipient sites been identified (Section 2.2.5)? YES  If considering population enhancement, do you have evidence of population decline (Section 2.2.6) and have you considered or attempted alternative means of increasing population size (Section 2.2.7)? YES Hiddhfili Ch. 2 Steps involved in conducting a survey Response 1. Collate existing records YES 2. Survey previous collection locations YES 3. Collate habitat information YES 4. Identify other potential sites YES

33

Vallee ref:

Ch. 3

Checklist for pre-translocation assessment A translocation program should not commence or be approved until all of the following questions can be answered:  Has an established recovery team for the taxon assisted with the pre-translocation assessment or has a suitable translocation working group been established as outlined in Section 3.1? YES  Are relevant aspects of the taxon's reproductive biology and ecology adequately understood (Section 3.2.1 and 3.2.2)? YES  Has an assessment of the need for genetic research been undertaken in consultation with a population geneticist and has any necessary genetic research been undertaken (Section 3.2.3)? YES (Prof. J. Bruhl, U.N.E.)  Have propagation methods been determined (Section 3.3)? YES  Has the source site(s) been identified and has a sampling strategy been designed (Section 3.4)? YES  Has a suitable recipient site(s) been identified (Section 3.5)? YES  Has the number of plants required been determined (Section 3.6)? YES  Has consideration been given to designing the translocation so that an experimental evaluation of translocation success can be undertaken (Section 3.7)? YES  Have appropriate post-translocation management, monitoring and evaluation procedures been identified (Section 3.9)? YES  Have all the logistical requirements of the program been determined and are sufficient resources available (Section 3.10)? YES  Have the relevant state conservation agencies been consulted regarding licensing requirements (Section 3.11)? YES If the answer to any of the above question is no then the benefits and risks of proceeding without that information are to be assessed prior to commencing the translocation.

Ch.5 Checklist for pre-translocation preparation The actual translocation should not commence until you can answer yes to all of the following questions:  Has the recipient site been adequately prepared as outlined in Section 5.1? YES  Was the translocation source material sampled appropriately as outlined in Sections 3.4 and 5.2? YES SAMPLING FOR POPULATION ANALYSIS COMPLETED AND TARGET SAMPLE FOR IMMEDIATE

34

TRANSLOCATION WAS IDENTIFIED  Has the identity of each clone/accession been tracked throughout the entire collection, storage and propagation stage so that the source plant of each individual to be translocated can be determined (Sections 5.2 and 5.3)? YES  Were the plants propagated and maintained by a nursery accredited under the Nursery Industry Accreditation Scheme, Australia, following phytosanitary techniques (Section 5.3.2)? NO – BUT SEE CAIRNS BOTANIC GARDENS ACCREDITATION AS A BOTANIC RESERVE  Have the plants been prepared for translocation as outlined in Section 5.3? STILL IN SITU PENDING DERM SRP APPROVAL (SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED)  Were all staff involved in the program adequately supervised and familiar with the translocation proposal yes(Section 5.4)? YES If the answer to any of the above questions is no then the benefits and risks of proceeding is to be assessed prior to embarking on the translocation.

Ch. 6

Checklist for actions to occur prior to translocation planting

Planting should not commence until all the following questions can be answered in the affirmative:  Has an assessment of the most appropriate time to plant occurred (Section 6.1)? YES  Do you have sufficient personnel to undertake the planting? Have you organized volunteers and assistants to help on the day? YES (Cairns Botanical Gardens staff)  Is the condition of the plants ideal (Section 6.2)? YES  Has a disease hygiene plan been prepared (Section 6.3.1)? N/A  Have you prepared a data sheet ready to track plants during the planting process (Section 6.3.2)? YES  Have you contacted owners or managers of land at, and adjacent to, the translocation site to let them know when you plan to plant? YES  Has appropriate transport to get the plants on site with minimal damage been organized (Section 6.3.3)? YES  Has the planting layout already been designed following the considerations outlined in Section 6.3.4? YES

35

Have means of after-planting care been identified (Section 6.4)? YES Ch. 7. Checklist for post-translocation actions A translocation program should not commence or be approved until all of the following questions can be answered in the affirmative:

 Have the details of the proposed after-planting care of the translocated plants been identified (Sections 6.4 and 7.1)? YES  Have provisions been made to undertake habitat management and threat abatement prior to planting as well as in an ongoing capacity after translocation (Sections 5.1 and 7.2)? YES – REF: CAIRNS REGIONAL COUNCIL SUPPORT FOR PROJECT  Has a monitoring plan been prepared and peer reviewed in accordance with the guidelines in Section 7.3? YES (D. Warmington Curator CBG)  Has the means of evaluating translocation success been identified and have specific criteria for determining success been identified (Section 7.4)? YES  Have sufficient funds been secured to implement the post-translocation management, monitoring and evaluation? YES

Should the answer to any of these questions be no, a precautionary approach should be taken to continuing with the project, and the consequences of proceeding without the appropriate level of post-translocation actions should be adequately considered.

36

Annex III

1. Photographic records of the response of Eleocharis retroflexa to experimental treatments

Fig. 1 A) Initial planting in greenhouse B) 20 day growth response

A

B

37

Fig. 2 A) Initial planting at lake edge B) response after 20 days

A

B

38

A

B

Fig. 3 (A) Conservation area flagged by CBG for lakeside plantings. Note: dense cover of E. retroflexa at base of sign (B) Pots with dense growth of E. retroflexa (27/4/12). L <-> R: B. Wannan, K. Walsh (DERM), S. Jackson (CBG)

39

Annex IV Review of information on the Ant Plant Myrmecodia beccarii

(Extract of previous report)

Plant Ecological Assessment of Lot 52 C19830 East Woree, Report No. 2010.25.11 dated 2 December 2010

1. MYRMECODIA BECCARII Hook. F.

1.1 Taxonomic description (see also Approved Conservation Advice (s266B of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999)

Myrmecodia beccarii, Family Rubiaceae, also known as Ant Plant, is a tuberous epiphyte (Fig 16). Tubers are irregularly cylindrical, 30 cm long, 21 cm wide, pale grey and covered in short, stout spines borne on mounds with pore and entrance holes absent. Within the tuber chambers up to 1 cm across occur with 0.5–1.5 cm of tissue between chambers. Several stems arise from the tuber and are freely branched, up to 15 cm long and 3 cm wide. Leaves are fleshy and succulent, elliptic to oblanceolate, 1–9 cm long, 1.4–4.5 cm wide and pale green on stalks 3-45 mm long. Flowers are white, about 1 cm long, with a ring of hairs just below the middle of the tube. Anthers are near the opening of the tube and blue coloured, and the style is 4-lobed. Fruit are white, up to 13 mm long, 5 mm wide and contain four pyrenes (Huxley & Jebb, 1993; Forster, 2000) (From EPBC, 2008b).

M. beccarii is distinguishable from other ant plants through its small and succulent leaves, as well as through its tendency to develop multiple stems. Typical for most ant plants are the hypocotyls, which are stems that enlarge to form a tuber-like structure. In Myrmecodia beccarii, these hypocotyls are covered in ridges and spines. The inconspicuous white flowers are formed in hollows along the alveoli (stem). The ripe white, red, orange or pink fruit then protrude from the alveoli. When the plant grows, tissue within the tuber dies back and hollow chambers form that Fig. 16 Myrmecodia beccarii on mangrove together allow ants (mostly Iridomyrmex with epiphytic Dischidia nummularia (ANBG photo) cordatus) to enter the plant. A symbiotic relationship exists whereby the plant provides a protective shelter for the ants, that in turn, provide additional nutrients to the plant with food detritus. Not all plants are inhabited but examinations show that in the wild, the vast majority of plants house ant colonies (Garbe, 2004). The Apollo Jewel Butterfly (Hypochrysops apollo apollo) lays its eggs on the plant. Because the eggs exude a similar odour to ant’s eggs they are carried inside the plant by the

40

ants where they develop through larva to adult butterfly. The larvae feed on the interior tissues in the tuber and emerge at night to feed also on the foliage (See also Braby, 2000).

1.2 Conservation status Myrmecodia beccarii is listed as vulnerable. This species is eligible for listing as vulnerable under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth) (EPBC Act) as, prior to the commencement of the EPBC Act, it was listed as vulnerable under Schedule 1 of the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 (Cwlth). Myrmecodia beccarii is also listed as vulnerable under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Queensland) (EPBC 2008b).

1.3 Distribution and habitat Myrmecodia beccarii is distributed in Melaleuca dominated coastal woodlands and mangroves in the Wet Tropics region mainly between Cooktown and Ingham in Queensland (Fig. 17) (see also Forster, 2000). The species is conserved within the Girringun National Park (NP), Daintree NP and Edmund Kennedy NP. This species has a minimum area of occupancy of 7000 km2, a minimum range of 350 km and is known from 10 locations including Endeavour River; 5km from Point Archer towards Cooktown; Bailey's Creek, north of Daintree; Hutchinson Creek; Cairns Inlet; Smith's Creek; Wah Day Creek; & Forest Beach,east of Ingham 16,17 (see also Landsberg & Clarkson, 2004). This Fig. 17 Distribution of Myrmecodia beccarii species occurs within the Wet Tropics and Cape York (Queensland) Natural Resource Management Regions. The distribution of this species is not known to overlap with any EPBC Act-listed threatened ecological community (EPBC 2008b).

1.4 Threats and research priorities The main identified threats to M. beccarii are clearing of the lowland paperbark woodlands; localised settlement pressures; and the removal or destruction of plants by plant and butterfly collectors (Forster, 2000; Landsberg & Clarkson, 2004; EPBC, 2008b). Research priorities identified by EPBC (2008b) that would inform future regional and local priority actions include:  Design and implement a monitoring program or, if appropriate, support and enhance existing programs.  More precisely assess population size, distribution, ecological requirements and the relative impacts of threatening processes.

16 http://www.skyrailfoundation.org/fundinglist.pdf 17 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=11852#distribution

41

 Undertake survey work in suitable habitat and potential habitat to locate any additional populations/occurrences/remnants.  Undertake seed germination and/or vegetative propagation trials to determine the requirements for successful establishment, including mycorrhizal association trials.  Investigate the potential and efficacy of DNA-based or other approaches for the identification of individual plants and/or populations to provide a means for detecting and prosecuting illegal collection from the wild.

1.5 Field assessment A ground reconnaissance of evidence for Myrmecodia beccarii was undertaken in both Lot 52 and GC sites. Other occurrences were noted in informal observations in mangrove and paperbark forest margins in peri-urban coastal environments north and south of Cairns.

1.6 Results No plants of Myrmecodia beccarii were recorded in either transect. However, several plants were observed in both sites. Should it be required, translocation of plants of this species is relatively straight-forward. Individuals can be re-attached to paperbarked tree species. While some mortalities can be expected, these may be reduced by initial potting using a procedure described by ANBG18

(Note: As at 26 June 2012, all translocated Ant Plants have successfully re-established along the mangrove margins of the CBG – See CNSW Report of 12 June 1012 Annex IV)

18 Growing instructions for Myrmecodia beccarii Australian National Botanical Garden http://www.anbg.gov.au/gnp/interns-2004/myrmecodia-beccarii.html

42

Annex V

Photographic monitoring of Myrmecodia beccarii CBG

A

B

Fig 1. (A) Collection of Myrmecodia beccarii by S. Jackson (CBG) at Lot 52 Maconachie St, Woree. (B) Translocation site at tidal edge habitat with mangroves and naturally occurring Myrmecodia beccarii on host tree Lumnitzera racemosa (CBG).

43

A

B

44

C

Fig. 2 (A) Establishment on 7/3/12 (B) Response as at 27/3/12 showing shoot recovery (C) Response as at 27/3/12 showing active new root growth.

45