DOCSLIB.ORG

Terrestrial Flora and Fauna Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT APPENDIX I - TERRESTRIAL FLORA AND FAUNA TECHNICAL REPORT Addendum: This EIS was initially prepared assuming that the safe harbour was to be part of the Lindeman Great Barrier Reef Resort Project. With the commencement of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s (GBRMPA) Dredging Coral Reef Habitat Policy (2016), further impacts on Great Barrier Reef coral reef habitats from yet more bleaching, and the recent impacts from Tropical Cyclone Debbie, the proponent no longer seeks assessment and approval to construct a safe harbour at Lindeman Island. Instead the proponent seeks assessment and approval for upgrades to the existing jetty and additional moorings in sheltered locations around the island to enable the resort’s marine craft to obtain safe shelter under a range of wind and wave conditions. Accordingly, remaining references to, and images of, a safe harbour on various figures and maps in the EIS are no longer current. Lindeman Island Resort EIS Terrestrial Flora and Fauna Technical Report February 2017 prepared for White Horse Australia Lindeman Pty Ltd Contact Information Details Organisation Northern Resource Consultants Pty Limited Contact Person Marty Costello Phone 07 4772 6500 Email [email protected] Mail 12 Cannan Street, South Townsville QLD, 4810 ABN 55 126 894 693 Document Control Details including responsible party and date CLIENT RELEASE DH. Authorised – MC. Released 27 August, 2015 CLIENT RELEASE R1 DH - Revised to include content from spring/summer survey event and address changes to master plan design. Authorised - MC. Released - 22 January, 2016 CLIENT RELEASE R2 DH – Revise for changes to master plan design and client comments. Authorised - MC. Released – 3 May, 2016 CLIENT RELEASE R3 DH – Revised in response to preliminary stakeholder feedback. Authorised – MC. Released– 5 August, 2016 CLIENT RELEASE R4 DH – Revised in response to further preliminary stakeholder feedback and updated master plan design. Authorised – MC. Released– 16 February, 2017 © Northern Resource Consultants, 2017 Limitations and Qualifications Client: White Horse Australia Lindeman Pty Ltd Prepared by Northern Resource Consultants (NRC) This document has been prepared for the sole and exclusive use of White Horse Australia Lindeman Pty Ltd (the Client). It may not be updated, amended, distributed or disclosed to any third party without the express written consent of Northern Resource Consultants (NRC). NRC makes no representation or warranty (whether express or implied), undertakes no duty and accepts no responsibility to any third party who may use or rely upon this document or any part of it. If any reliance is placed on this document, or any part of it, by any third party, NRC hereby disclaims any and all liability for such reliance. This document has been prepared on the basis of instructions provided to NRC by the Client. It is limited by the scope of those instructions and any qualifications which have been agreed between NRC and the Client or otherwise communicated to the Client prior to the date of this document (Date), whether verbally or in writing. The scope of those instructions may have been limited by a range of factors including, but not limited to, time, budget and access constraints. Any statements, opinions, conclusions, advice or recommendations contained in this document (Conclusions) must be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole. This document is current as at the Date and the Conclusions may differ if further investigation, observation or analysis is undertaken by NRC or if any data, information, designs, plans or analysis (Data) relied upon by NRC when preparing this document is subsequently found to be incorrect or incomplete. Unless otherwise specified in this document, NRC is not responsible for revising or updating this document if additional Data is obtained after the Date, through further investigation, observation, analysis or otherwise, which indicates that the content of this document, including any Conclusion, is inaccurate or incomplete. Unless otherwise stated in this document, where Data used in this document, or upon which the Conclusions were based, was obtained from the Client or any third party, the accuracy and completeness of that Data has not been independently verified by NRC. Such Data was used in good faith and NRC is not responsible for its quality, accuracy or completeness, nor does NRC warrant or represent that such Data is accurate, up-to-date or complete. Neither the Conclusions nor any part of this document constitutes legal advice, nor do they represent the opinions of the government or regulatory agencies responsible for the administration of the relevant legislation or regulatory regimes. © Northern Resource Consultants, 2017 Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 1. Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Purpose ........................................................................................................................................... 1 3. Study Area ...................................................................................................................................... 2 4. Statutory Framework ....................................................................................................................... 2 4.1 Commonwealth Legislation .................................................................................................... 2 4.2 State Legislation .................................................................................................................... 3 Flora and Fauna Assessment Methodology ................................................................... 7 1. Overall Assessment Methodology .................................................................................................. 7 2. Desktop Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 8 2.1 Literature review and previous studies .................................................................................. 8 2.2 Database Searches ............................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Mapping ................................................................................................................................. 9 3. Nomenclature and Taxonomy ....................................................................................................... 10 4. Flora Survey Methodology ............................................................................................................ 10 4.1 Overall methodology ............................................................................................................ 10 4.2 Vegetation Assessment Sites .............................................................................................. 11 4.3 Vegetation Mapping ............................................................................................................. 13 4.4 Random Meander Technique .............................................................................................. 15 5. Fauna Survey Methodology .......................................................................................................... 15 5.1 Survey Timing and Environmental Conditions ..................................................................... 15 5.2 Systematic Survey Sites ...................................................................................................... 17 5.3 Survey Techniques .............................................................................................................. 19 5.4 Additional Survey Areas and Techniques ............................................................................ 20 5.5 Targeted Techniques ........................................................................................................... 22 5.6 Survey Effort ........................................................................................................................ 23 Desktop Analysis Results ............................................................................................. 25 1. Literature Review and Previous Studies ....................................................................................... 25 1.1 NRC Vegetation Survey and Offset Requirements Report (2013) ...................................... 25 LINDEMAN ISLAND RESORT – EIS TERRESTRIAL FLORA AND FAUNA TECHNICAL REPORT prepared by: Northern Resource Consultants Pty Ltd 2. Database Searches ...................................................................................................................... 26 2.1 Threatened Ecological Communities ................................................................................... 26 2.2 Threatened Flora Species ................................................................................................... 26 2.3 Threatened Fauna Species ................................................................................................. 26 2.4 Migratory Species ................................................................................................................ 27 3. Regional Ecosystem Mapping .....................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Kimberley Technology Solutions Pty Ltd Cockatoo Island Multi-User Supply Base EPBC Matters of National Environmental Significance Assessment

    Kimberley Technology Solutions Pty Ltd Cockatoo Island Multi-User Supply Base EPBC Matters of National Environmental Significance Assessment

    Kimberley Technology Solutions Pty Ltd Cockatoo Island Multi-User Supply Base EPBC Matters of National Environmental Significance Assessment June 2017 Table of contents 1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose of this Document ...................................................................................................1 1.2 Overview of the Proposal.....................................................................................................1 1.3 The Proponent .....................................................................................................................1 1.4 Location of the Project .........................................................................................................1 2. The Proposal..................................................................................................................................3 2.1 Proposal Justification...........................................................................................................3 2.2 On-shore Developments......................................................................................................3 2.1 Marine Developments..........................................................................................................8 2.2 Staging...............................................................................................................................10 3. Existing environment....................................................................................................................11
  • 503 Flora V7 2.Doc 3

    503 Flora V7 2.Doc 3

    Browse LNG Precinct ©WOODSIDE Browse Liquefied Natural Gas Precinct Strategic Assessment Report (Draft for Public Review) December 2010 Appendix C-18 A Vegetation and Flora Survey of James Price Point: Wet Season 2009 A Vegetation and Flora Survey of James Price Point: Wet Season 2009 Prepared for Department of State Development December 2009 A Vegetation and Flora Survey of James Price Point: Wet Season 2009 © Biota Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 2009 ABN 49 092 687 119 Level 1, 228 Carr Place Leederville Western Australia 6007 Ph: (08) 9328 1900 Fax: (08) 9328 6138 Project No.: 503 Prepared by: P. Chukowry, M. Maier Checked by: G. Humphreys Approved for Issue: M. Maier This document has been prepared to the requirements of the client identified on the cover page and no representation is made to any third party. It may be cited for the purposes of scientific research or other fair use, but it may not be reproduced or distributed to any third party by any physical or electronic means without the express permission of the client for whom it was prepared or Biota Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd. This report has been designed for double-sided printing. Hard copies supplied by Biota are printed on recycled paper. Cube:Current:503 (Kimberley Hub Wet Season):Doc:Flora:503 flora v7_2.doc 3 A Vegetation and Flora Survey of James Price Point: Wet Season 2009 4 Cube:Current:503 (Kimberley Hub Wet Season):Doc:Flora:503 flora v7_2.doc Biota A Vegetation and Flora Survey of James Price Point: Wet Season 2009 A Vegetation and Flora Survey of James Price
  • Review of Selected Literature and Epiphyte Classification

    Review of Selected Literature and Epiphyte Classification

    --------- -- ---------· 4 CHAPTER 1 REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE AND EPIPHYTE CLASSIFICATION 1.1 Review of Selected, Relevant Literature (p. 5) Several important aspects of epiphyte biology and ecology that are not investigated as part of this work, are reviewed, particularly those published on more. recently. 1.2 Epiphyte Classification and Terminology (p.11) is reviewed and the system used here is outlined and defined. A glossary of terms, as used here, is given. 5 1.1 Review of Selected, Relevant Li.terature Since the main works of Schimper were published (1884, 1888, 1898), particularly Die Epiphytische Vegetation Amerikas (1888), many workers have written on many aspects of epiphyte biology and ecology. Most of these will not be reviewed here because they are not directly relevant to the present study or have been effectively reviewed by others. A few papers that are keys to the earlier literature will be mentioned but most of the review will deal with topics that have not been reviewed separately within the chapters of this project where relevant (i.e. epiphyte classification and terminology, aspects of epiphyte synecology and CAM in the epiphyt~s). Reviewed here are some special problems of epiphytes, particularly water and mineral availability, uptake and cycling, general nutritional strategies and matters related to these. Also, all Australian works of any substance on vascular epiphytes are briefly discussed. some key earlier papers include that of Pessin (1925), an autecology of an epiphytic fern, which investigated a number of factors specifically related to epiphytism; he also reviewed more than 20 papers written from the early 1880 1 s onwards.
  • Boigu Islands, Form the Northern Island Group of Torres Strait, Located Approximately 150 Km North of Thursday Island (See Figure 1)

    Boigu Islands, Form the Northern Island Group of Torres Strait, Located Approximately 150 Km North of Thursday Island (See Figure 1)

    PROFILE FOR MANAGEMENT OF THE HABITATS AND RELATED ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCE VALUES OF DAUAN ISLAND January 2013 Prepared by 3D Environmental for Torres Strait Regional Authority Land & Sea Management Unit Cover image: 3D Environmental (2013) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The granite rock pile that forms Dauan, along with nearby Saibai and Boigu Islands, form the Northern Island Group of Torres Strait, located approximately 150 km north of Thursday Island (see Figure 1). Whilst Saibai and Boigu Island are extensions of the alluvial Fly Platform, geologically part of the Papua New Guinea mainland, Dauan is formed on continental basement rock which extends northward from Cape York Peninsula to Mabadauan Hill on the south-west coast of Papua New Guinea. A total of 14 vegetation communities, within ten broad vegetation groups and 14 regional ecosystems are recognised on the island. The total known flora of comprises 402 species (14 ferns, 388 angiosperms), with 317 native and 85 naturalised species. Nine plant species are considered threatened at the commonwealth and state levels and a further 25 species considered to have significance at a regional level. As for the majority of Torres Strait Islands there is a lack of systematic survey of fauna habitats on the island. A desktop review identified 135 fauna species that are reported to occur on Dauan. This can be compared with the 384 terrestrial fauna species that have been reported for the broader Torres Strait Island group. The Dauan fauna comprises 20 reptiles, 100 birds, 3 frogs and 12 mammals. Of these, one reptile, one bird and four mammal species are introduced.
  • Ficus Rubiginosa 1 (X /2)

    Ficus Rubiginosa 1 (X /2)

    KEY TO GROUP 4 Plants with a milky white sap present – latex. Although not all are poisonous, all should be treated with caution, at least initially. (May need to squeeze the broken end of the stem or petiole). The plants in this group belong to the Apocynaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Moraceae, and Sapotaceae. Although an occasional vine in the Convolvulaceae which, has some watery/milky sap will key to here, please refer to Group 3. (3.I, 3.J, 3.K) A. leaves B. leaves C. leaves alternate opposite whorled 1 Leaves alternate on the twigs (see sketch A), usually shrubs and 2 trees, occasionally a woody vine or scrambler go to Group 4.A 1* Leaves opposite (B) or whorled (C), i.e., more than 2 arising at the same level on the twigs go to 2 2 Herbs usually less than 60 cm tall go to Group 4.B 2* Shrubs or trees usually taller than 1 m go to Group 4.C 1 (All Apocynaceae) Ficus obliqua 1 (x /2) Ficus rubiginosa 1 (x /2) 2 GROUP 4.A Leaves alternate, shrubs or trees, occasional vine (chiefly Moraceae, Sapotaceae). Ficus spp. (Moraceae) Ficus, the Latin word for the edible fig. About 9 species have been recorded for the Island. Most, unless cultivated, will be found only in the dry rainforest areas or closed forest, as in Nelly Bay. They are distinguished by the latex which flows from all broken portions; the alternate usually leathery leaves; the prominent stipule (↑) which encloses the terminal bud and the “fig” (↑) or syconia. This fleshy receptacle bears the flowers on the inside; as the seeds mature the receptacle enlarges and often softens (Think of the edible fig!).
  • Monsoon Vine Thickets on the Coastal Sand Dunes of the Dampier Peninsula

    Monsoon Vine Thickets on the Coastal Sand Dunes of the Dampier Peninsula

    INTERIM RECOVERY PLAN NO. 383 Monsoon vine thickets on the coastal sand dunes of the Dampier Peninsula 2018 – 2023 February 2018 1 Foreword Interim Recovery Plans (IRPs) are developed within the framework laid down in Department of Parks and Wildlife (now Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions) Corporate Policy Statement No. 35 (DPaW 2015a) and Corporate Guideline No. 35 (DPaW 2015b). Corporate Policy Statement No. 35 states that the department will prepare recovery plans or conservation advices that document the conservation requirements, recovery or management actions and information requirements of threatened species and ecological communities (TECs), identify threatening processes impacting threatened species or TECs, and implement programs to mitigate the threats. Interim recovery plans outline the recovery actions that are required to urgently address those threatening processes most affecting the ongoing survival of threatened species or ecological communities, and begin the recovery process. While the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA) is committed to ensuring that threatened ecological communities are conserved through the preparation and implementation of Recovery Plans (RPs) or IRPs, there is no statutory requirement to implement recovery actions identified in this plan. This plan identifies responsibilities for specific actions and largely refers to the department initiating and guiding actions. However, the implementation of recovery actions by the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions or any other organisation will be done within the context of regional and statewide priorities and technical and resource capacity. The provision of funds identified in this plan is dependent on budgetary and other constraints affecting the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, as well as the need to address other priorities.
  • Southern Gulf, Queensland

    Southern Gulf, Queensland

    Biodiversity Summary for NRM Regions Species List What is the summary for and where does it come from? This list has been produced by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPC) for the Natural Resource Management Spatial Information System. The list was produced using the AustralianAustralian Natural Natural Heritage Heritage Assessment Assessment Tool Tool (ANHAT), which analyses data from a range of plant and animal surveys and collections from across Australia to automatically generate a report for each NRM region. Data sources (Appendix 2) include national and state herbaria, museums, state governments, CSIRO, Birds Australia and a range of surveys conducted by or for DEWHA. For each family of plant and animal covered by ANHAT (Appendix 1), this document gives the number of species in the country and how many of them are found in the region. It also identifies species listed as Vulnerable, Critically Endangered, Endangered or Conservation Dependent under the EPBC Act. A biodiversity summary for this region is also available. For more information please see: www.environment.gov.au/heritage/anhat/index.html Limitations • ANHAT currently contains information on the distribution of over 30,000 Australian taxa. This includes all mammals, birds, reptiles, frogs and fish, 137 families of vascular plants (over 15,000 species) and a range of invertebrate groups. Groups notnot yet yet covered covered in inANHAT ANHAT are notnot included included in in the the list. list. • The data used come from authoritative sources, but they are not perfect. All species names have been confirmed as valid species names, but it is not possible to confirm all species locations.
  • Mangrove Guidebook for Southeast Asia

    Mangrove Guidebook for Southeast Asia

    RAP PUBLICATION 2006/07 MANGROVE GUIDEBOOK FOR SOUTHEAST ASIA The designations and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its frontiers or boundaries. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors alone and do not imply any opinion whatsoever on the part of FAO. Authored by: Wim Giesen, Stephan Wulffraat, Max Zieren and Liesbeth Scholten ISBN: 974-7946-85-8 FAO and Wetlands International, 2006 Printed by: Dharmasarn Co., Ltd. First print: July 2007 For copies write to: Forest Resources Officer FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific Maliwan Mansion Phra Atit Road, Bangkok 10200 Thailand E-mail: [email protected] ii FOREWORDS Large extents of the coastlines of Southeast Asian countries were once covered by thick mangrove forests. In the past few decades, however, these mangrove forests have been largely degraded and destroyed during the process of development. The negative environmental and socio-economic impacts on mangrove ecosystems have led many government and non- government agencies, together with civil societies, to launch mangrove conservation and rehabilitation programmes, especially during the 1990s. In the course of such activities, programme staff have faced continual difficulties in identifying plant species growing in the field. Despite a wide availability of mangrove guidebooks in Southeast Asia, none of these sufficiently cover species that, though often associated with mangroves, are not confined to this habitat.
  • Cattle Creek Ecological Assessment Report

    Cattle Creek Ecological Assessment Report

    CATTLE CREEK CCCATTLE CCCREEK RRREGIONAL EEECOSYSTEM AND FFFUNCTIONALITY SSSURVEY Report prepared for Santos GLNG Feb 2021 Terrestria Pty Ltd, PO Box 328, Wynnum QLD 4178 Emai : admin"terrestria.com.au This page left blank for double-sided printing purposes. Terrestria Pty Ltd, PO Box 328, Wynnum QLD 4178 Emai : admin"terrestria.com.au Document Control Sheet Project Number: 0213 Project Manager: Andrew Daniel Client: Santos Report Title: Cattle Creek Regional Ecosystem and Functionality Survey Project location: Cattle Creek, Bauhinia, Southern Queensland Project Author/s: Andrew Daniel Project Summary: Assessment of potential ecological constraints to well pad location, access and gathering. Document preparation and distribution history Document version Date Completed Checked By Issued By Date sent to client Draft A 04/09/2020 AD AD 04/09/2020 Draft B Final 02/02/2021 AD AD 02/02/2021 Notice to users of this report CopyrighCopyright: This document is copyright to Terrestria Pty Ltd. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Terrestria Pty Ltd. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the express permission of Terrestria Pty Ltd constitutes a breach of the Copyright Act 1968. Report LimitationsLimitations: This document has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Santos Pty Ltd. Terrestria Pty Ltd accept no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party. Signed on behalf of Terrestria Pty Ltd Dr Andrew Daniel Managing Director Date: 02 February 2021 Terrestria Pty Ltd File No: 0213 CATTLE CREEK REGIONAL ECOSYSTEM AND FUNCTIONALITY SURVEY Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................
  • I Is the Sunda-Sahul Floristic Exchange Ongoing?

    I Is the Sunda-Sahul Floristic Exchange Ongoing?

    Is the Sunda-Sahul floristic exchange ongoing? A study of distributions, functional traits, climate and landscape genomics to investigate the invasion in Australian rainforests By Jia-Yee Samantha Yap Bachelor of Biotechnology Hons. A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2018 Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation i Abstract Australian rainforests are of mixed biogeographical histories, resulting from the collision between Sahul (Australia) and Sunda shelves that led to extensive immigration of rainforest lineages with Sunda ancestry to Australia. Although comprehensive fossil records and molecular phylogenies distinguish between the Sunda and Sahul floristic elements, species distributions, functional traits or landscape dynamics have not been used to distinguish between the two elements in the Australian rainforest flora. The overall aim of this study was to investigate both Sunda and Sahul components in the Australian rainforest flora by (1) exploring their continental-wide distributional patterns and observing how functional characteristics and environmental preferences determine these patterns, (2) investigating continental-wide genomic diversities and distances of multiple species and measuring local species accumulation rates across multiple sites to observe whether past biotic exchange left detectable and consistent patterns in the rainforest flora, (3) coupling genomic data and species distribution models of lineages of known Sunda and Sahul ancestry to examine landscape-level dynamics and habitat preferences to relate to the impact of historical processes. First, the continental distributions of rainforest woody representatives that could be ascribed to Sahul (795 species) and Sunda origins (604 species) and their dispersal and persistence characteristics and key functional characteristics (leaf size, fruit size, wood density and maximum height at maturity) of were compared.
  • Published on DES Disclosure Log RTI Act 2009

    Published on DES Disclosure Log RTI Act 2009

    Premium Ecotourism Products on Whitsunday Island Feasibility study Department of Environment and Science Reference: 503504 Final report 2019-01-17 Log Disclosure 2009 DES Act on RTI Published 19-067 File A Page 1 of 225 Document control record Document prepared by: Aurecon Australasia Pty Ltd ABN 54 005 139 873 Level 14, 32 Turbot Street Brisbane QLD 4000 Locked Bag 331 Brisbane QLD 4001 Australia T +61 7 3173 8000 F +61 7 3173 8001 E [email protected] W aurecongroup.com Log A person using Aurecon documents or data accepts the risk of: a) Using the documents or data in electronic form without requesting and checking them for accuracy against the original hard copy version. b) Using the documents or data for any purpose not agreed to in writing by Aurecon. Document control Report title Feasibility study Disclosure Document code Project number 503504 File path C:\Users\anna.gannon\AppData\Roaming\OpenText\OTEdit\EC_cs\c187438359\Whitsunday Island feasibility study_final 10.12.18.docx2009 Client Department of DESEnvironment and Science Client contact Michael O’Neill ActClient reference DES 18007 Rev Date Revisionon details/status Author Reviewer Verifier Approver (if required) 1 2018-10-12 Draft feasibilityRTI study report AG PG LK 2 2018-11-23 Final draft feasibility study AG PG DK report 3 2018-11-29 Final draft feasibility study AG PG DK report v2 4 2018-12-12 Final feasibility study report AG PG DK 5 2018-12-21 Final feasibility study report v2 AG PG DK 6 Published2019-01-18 Final Feasibility Study AG DK Current revision 6 Approval Author signature Approver signature Name Name Title Title Project number 503504 File EDOCS-#7475505-v1-Whitsunday_Island_Feasibility_Study_Final 2019-01-17 Revision 6 19-067 File A Page 2 of 225 Contents 1 Background and strategic context ...........................................................................................................
  • A.N.P.S.A. Fern Study Group Newsletter Number 143

    A.N.P.S.A. Fern Study Group Newsletter Number 143

    A.N.P.S.A. Fern Study Group Newsletter Number 143 ISSN 1837-008X DATE: June, 2019 LEADER: Peter Bostock, 54/260 Cliveden Avenue, CORINDA, Qld 4075. Tel. 07 3096 1054, mobile: 0421 113 955; email: [email protected] TREASURER: Dan Johnston, 9 Ryhope St, BUDERIM, Qld 4556. Tel. 07 5445 6069, mobile: 0429 065 894; email: [email protected] (note change of email address) NEWSLETTER EDITOR: Peter Bostock, contact as above. Program for South-east Queensland Region Peter Bostock Sunday 7th July 2019. Excursion to Bryces Road/Joyners Ridge Road, Mt Glorious. Meet along roadside between Mt Glorious Cafe and lower entrance to Maiala (D’Aguilar NP) at 9:30 am. Entrance to the walk is via set of steps on the southern side of Mt Glorious Road (or walk around the locked gate!). We last attempted a visit to Bryces Rd in August 2017 but had to make alternate plans due to hazard reduction burns in the area. Leader’s comment: this newsletter is a month late, as recipients will realise; this walk was quite successful, rain held off and a full report will be in the next newsletter. Sunday 4th August 2019. Excursion to Witches Falls, Mt Tamborine. Meet at 9:30 am at the roadside parking area, on Main Western Road between Hartley Rd and West Rd. Witches Falls circuit is a steep walk, with Grade 3 difficulty (suitable for most ages and fitness levels; some bushwalking experience recommended; tracks may have short, steep hill sections, a rough surface and many steps). See the Qld Department of Environment and Science website at : https://parks.des.qld.gov.au/parks/tamborine/ about.html#witches for further information.