299 7.5.7 MEROPS ORNATUS (RAINBOW BEE

Transcription

QCLNG Upstream Project
Significant Species Management Plans
7.5.7
MEROPS ORNATUS (RAINBOW BEE-EATER)
Significant Species Management Plan 48
Merops ornatus (Rainbow Bee-eater)
Merops ornatus (Photo: Bruce
Thomson)
Merops ornatus Occurrence Records Map ( Atlas of Living Australia,
2015)
EPBC Act Conservation Status
Migratory / Marine
NC Act Conservation Status
Least Concern
Known Distribution
The Rainbow Bee-eater is found throughout mainland Australia. It is not found in Tasmania, and is thinly
distributed in the most arid regions of central and Western Australia (Barrett et al. 2003; Blakers et al.
1984; Higgins 1999).
After breeding, they move north and remain there for the duration of the Australian winter. However,
populations that breed in northern Australia are considered to be resident, and in many northern localities
the Rainbow Bee-eater is present throughout the year (Emison et al. 1987; Lane 1963; Morris et al. 1981;
Saunders and Ingram 1995; Serventy 1948; Serventy and Whittell 1976; Terrill and Rix 1950).
A potential habitat map for the Rainbow Bee-eater is contained at the end of this individual SMP.
Occurrence within Gas Field
Field surveys have recorded several individuals throughout the Gas Field.
Description and Relevant Characteristics
The Rainbow Bee-eater is a medium-sized bird, males measure 25cm in length and the females 22cm.
299
UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED
QGC 2015
Revision 5
Both length measurements include the central tail-streamers. The adult males and females are similar in
appearance, but can usually be distinguished by differences in the length and shape of the tail-streamers
(Higgins 1999).
Biology and Reproduction
The Rainbow Bee-eater mainly feeds on insects (Lea and Gray 1935; Serventy and Whittell 1976; Fry
1984; Calver et al. 1987; Higgins 1999), and will occasionally take other animal items including
earthworms (Cleland et al. 1918), spiders (Lea and Gray 1935) and tadpoles (Wheeler 1973).
Birds gather in small flocks before returning to summer breeding areas after over-wintering in the north
(apart from the resident northern populations).
Both males and females select a suitable nesting site in a sandy bank and dig a long tunnel (average
length: 89.4 cm). The nesting chamber is generally unlined (the eggs are laid directly onto the bare earth
or sand) (Forshaw and Cooper 1987), although in some burrows the chamber may be lined with grass,
feathers, snail shells or wasp wings (Berney 1906; Cleland 1909; Higgins 1999). Both parents incubate
the eggs and both feed the young, sometimes with the assistance of auxiliaries (helpers).
Preferred Habitat and Microhabitat
The Rainbow Bee-eater occurs mainly in open forests and woodlands, shrublands, and in various cleared
or semi-cleared habitats, including farmland and areas of human habitation (Higgins 1999).
Birds breed throughout most of the distributional range, although southern birds often move north to
breed.
General Threats
Few threats are known. This species is listed as Migratory and is subject to international treaties in
relation to migratory birds.

Human activities can disrupt Rainbow Bee Eater nests built in active mines or quarries, or in natural
creek banks and other sites where construction or other disturbance may occur;

Introduced predators such as foxes and wild dogs can dig down into nests to eat nestlings. Cane
Toads have also been identified to reduce the breeding success of the species by feeding on eggs
and nestlings, as well as occupying nesting burrows; and

Rainbow Bee Eaters also sometimes collide with lighthouses when migrating.
Potential Project Threats
Development

Disturbance of nesting sites due to clearing, especially if these activities occur in riverine
environments with sandy substrates;

Disturbance to foraging/roosting/breeding by noise pollution; and

Disturbance to roosting/breeding by light pollution.
Operation and Decommissioning

Disturbance to foraging/roosting/breeding by noise pollution; and

Disturbance to roosting/breeding by light pollution.
Management Strategies
The primary management strategy is to focus on the identification, avoidance and protection of
individuals, populations, habitat and breeding areas. Various mitigation measures outlining how this will
occur are detailed in the following section.
Should the species or their nest be identified, and impacts confirmed, the management strategies outlined
300
QGC 2015
Revision 5
in Section 4.1 of the QCLNG Gas Field SSMP will be applied.
Should a Rainbow Bee Eater breeding place be identified and it is determined that disturbance or
tampering to the breeding site is unavoidable the management strategy will be to follow the procedures
outlined in the Species Management Plan - Tampering with Breeding Place of a Protected Animal
Species (QCLNG-BG00-ENV-RPT-000004).
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures to minimise Project impacts on the Rainbow Bee-eater are:

As required under the Protocol a pre-clearance survey will be undertaken of each planned
infrastructure area (also known as a pegging party) by a qualified ecologist to identify the presence /
absence of Rainbow Bee-eaters and their nesting sites;

As part of routine pre-start meetings, work crews will be briefed on any known and potential
environmental constraints occurring in that work location, including any likely significant flora and
fauna species, populations and TEC they may encounter;

Wherever practicable signage should be erected to increase the general awareness amongst work
crews of the presence of the Rainbow Bee-eater and particularly any nesting sites in the area;

All clearing activities to be carried out in a sequential manner and in a way that directs escaping
wildlife away from clearing and into adjacent native vegetation or natural areas;

Prior to clearing, limits of clearing areas including “no go” zones delineating Rainbow Bee-eater
habitat or nests identified during pre-clearance surveys will be clearly marked out with appropriate
flagging material and/or barricade webbing as determined by the site Environment Representative;

If any such nesting sites of the Rainbow Bee-eater are identified they shall be clearly marked out as
‘no go’ zones with appropriate flagging material and/or barricade webbing as determined by the site
Environment Representative. All possible measures shall be taken to avoid disturbing any such sites,
including the reduction of the clearance area or relocation of any associated site infrastructure;

If it is determined that clearing of nesting trees is unavoidable, a suitably qualified and licensed fauna
spotter catcher who is in possession of appropriate permits for fauna relocation will check the nest for
active use by the Rainbow Bee-eater. Should the nest have evidence of previous use, actions as
identified in the Species Management Plan - Tampering with Breeding Place of a Protected Animal
Species (QCLNG-BG00-ENV-RPT-000004) will be implemented. This may include relocating nests
where feasible which shall be undertaken by the licensed fauna spotter catcher in an appropriate
manner. Displaced nests will then be relocated by the licensed fauna spotter catcher to a suitable
recipient site;

Measures will be taken to avoid any injury to the Rainbow Bee-eater at all times, however if any
injured birds are found they shall be transported to a veterinarian or recognised wildlife carer
immediately for treatment;

All recorded sightings of the Rainbow Bee-eater, the locations of any nesting sites and any relocations
which may be required will be reported to the relevant authority as part of the Project reporting;

Dust suppression measures including road watering and reduced vehicle speeds will be implemented
to minimise dust deposition in habitat areas;

Where possible, when erecting any project related fencing the use of barb wire, particularly on the top
strand, is to be avoided to avoid birds and other fauna getting caught;

Where barbed wire fencing is absolutely necessary, QGC will investigate the use of the following
design:
- electrical fence ribbon should be co-located with the top strand of barbed wire, or
- plastic bunting (or warning tags) should be attached to the top strand of barbed wire.

Where the species has been identified in proximity to the Gas Field infrastructure, temporary lighting
shall be directed away from light-sensitive areas such as nesting areas and light shades and low
lighting must be applied to construction and operational areas where these are located adjacent to
301
QGC 2015
Revision 5
remnant vegetation and other environmentally sensitive areas;

Vehicle activities should be restricted to roads, access tracks and hardened surfaces to reduce
potential impacts to threatened species;

Fire management measures shall take into account the need to protect remnant vegetation from
frequent and hot fires. On site fire management practices shall be in accordance with Contractor
HSSE requirements, relevant construction permits and method statements and appropriate dedicated
firefighting equipment will be available at high risk construction sites to manage any fires that may
start up and to avoid wildfires breaking out; and

Should non-compliance with the mitigation measures or management strategies outlined in this SSMP
occur on site an investigation shall be undertaken by all responsible parties followed by corrective
action procedures if required. Work in the area will cease at the time of the non-compliance if the
incident is deemed significant by the site Environment Representative.
Rehabilitation and Recovery
Rehabilitation will be progressively undertaken during construction following backfilling and completion of
infrastructure establishment. Natural regeneration of disturbed areas will be encouraged after construction
activities and also at the conclusion of the Project. Further detail on rehabilitation is provided in the Gas
Field RRRMP.
Performance Measures
Pre-clearance surveys are undertaken of each planned infrastructure area (also known as a pegging
party) by a qualified ecologist to identify the presence / absence of Rainbow Bee-eaters and nests.
Avoidance of nesting sites where possible.
Successful relocation of nests where practicable.
Monitoring
An appropriate monitoring program, incorporating the monitoring of any offset site where applicable, will
be established in conjunction with the relevant authority once any impact to the Rainbow Bee-eater is
identified.
Monitoring of rehabilitation areas will be undertaken as detailed in the Gas Field RRRMP.
References
Atlas of Living Australia (2015), Available from
http://bie.ala.org.au/species/Merops+%28Merops%29+ornatus, Accessed 13 January 2015.
Barrett, G., Silcocks, A. Barry, S. Cunningham, R. and Poulter, R. (2003). The New Atlas of Australian
Birds. Melbourne, Victoria: Birds Australia.
Blakers, M., Davies, S. J. J. F. and Reilly, P. N. (1984). The Atlas of Australian Birds. RAOU and
Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.
Berney, F.L. (1906). Field notes on birds of the Richmond district, north Queensland. Emu. 6:41-7.
Cleland, J.B. (1909). Notes on several birds found at Strelley River (Port Hedland, Marble Bar Road),
north-western Australia. Emu. 8:155-156.
Calver, MC, Saunders, DA and Porter, BD (1987). The diet of nestling Rainbow Bee-eaters, Merops
ornatus, on Rottnest Island, Western Australia, and observations on a non-destructive method of diet
analysis. Australian Wildlife Research. 14:541-550.
Emison, W.B., Beardsell, C.M., Norman, F.I., Loyn, R.H. and Bennett, S.C. (1987). Atlas of Victorian
Birds. Melbourne: Department of Conservation (Forest and Lands) and Royal Australian Ornithological
Union.
Forshaw, J.M. and W.T. Cooper (1987). Kingfishers and Related Birds: Todidae, Momotidae, Meropidae.
Lansdowne Editions, Melbourne.
302
QGC 2015
Revision 5
Fry, CH (1984). The Bee-eaters. In: Book. Poyser, Calton, England.
Higgins, P.J. (ed.) (1999). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Volume Four Parrots to Dollarbird. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Lane, S.G. (1963). Notes on banding Rainbow Birds. Australian Bird Bander. 1:59- 61.
Lea, A. M. and Gray, J.T. (1935). The food of Australian birds: an analysis of the stomach contents. Part
2. Emu. 35:63-98.
Morris, A.K., McGill, A.R. and Holmes, G. (1981). Handlist of Birds in New South Wales. Sydney: NSW
Field Ornithologists Club.
Saunders, D.A. and Ingram J.A. (1995). Birds of Southwestern Australia: An Atlas of Changes in the
Distribution and Abundance of the Wheatbelt Avifauna. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, NSW.
Serventy, D.L. and Whittell, H.M. (1976). Birds of Western Australia. Perth: University of Western
Australia Press.
Terrill, S.E. and Rix, C.E. (1950). The birds of South Australia: their distribution and habitat. South
Australian Ornithologist. 19:53-100.
Wheeler, R. (1973). Rainbow birds taking tadpoles. Australian Bird Watcher. 5:48.
303
QGC 2015
Revision 5
Ö TAROOM
Ö
150°E
151°E
Ö
Ö
CAIRNS
Ö
Ö
TOWNSVILLE
Ö
Ö
26°S
Q
Q uu ee ee nn ss ll aa nn dd
Ö
Ö
MACKAY
26°S
CLERMONT
Ö
Ö
Bowen Basin
WANDOAN
Ö
Ö
LE
Ö
Ö
GLADSTONE
IC
H
ROMA
H
Ö
Ö
AR
DT
Cooper Basin
Surat Basin
CHINCHILLA
Ö
Ö
BRISBANE
HI
GH
WA
Y
N
N ee w
w S
S oo uu tt hh W
W aa ll ee ss
Ö
W A R REGO HIGHWA Y Ö
DULACCA
Ö
Ö
MILES
WA
RRE
GO
HIG
HW
AY
Ö
Ö
CHINCHILLA
JANDOWAE
Ö
Ö
RO M
A
CO ND AM
I NE ROA D
27°S
27°S
!
?
Ö
Ö
TARA
RDT
HHA
L EI C
W
HIG H
AY
Ö
Ö
MO
O
E
NI
HI
GH
AY
W
150°E
151°E
PLAN 48 - RAINBOW BEE-EATER Merops ornatus
±
0
10
Ö
Ö
20
40
Kilometers
Map Projection: GDA 94
DATA SOURCE:
Town/City
Principal Road
Secondary Road
SCALE:
Tenements - DNRM
Habitat data - Amec/DEHP
Towns - GA ,Roads - Navteq
1:650,000 (A3)
!
?
Merops ornatus Survey
Records (QGC)
Merops ornatus Indicative
habitat
QCLNG Project
DATE: 14/01/2015 CREATED BY:
MAP NO:
NOTE: Whilst care has been taken to prepare this map, QGC (and associated data custodians) make no guarantees about its accuracy, reliability or completeness and cannot accept responsibility of any kind for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are incurred by any party as a result of this product.
"Based on or contains data provided by the State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Resource Management) 2015. In consideration of the State permitting use of this data you acknowledge and agree that the State gives no warranty in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability,
completeness, currency or suitability) and accepts no liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs (including consequential damage) relating to any use of the data. Data must not be used for direct marketing or be used in breach of the privacy laws."
LN-pagew01
M_39786_46
7.5.8
TURNIX MELANOGASTER (BLACK-BREASTED BUTTON-QUAIL)
Turnix melanogaster (Black Breasted Button Quail)
Turnix melanogaster (Photo: Luke Hogan)
Turnix melanogaster Occurrence Records Map (Atlas
of Living Australia, 2015)
Vulnerable
Vulnerable
Known Distribution
The Black-breasted Button-quail is known to occur in eastern Queensland (Qld) and New South Wales
(NSW) from the Byfield region in the north, to the Border Ranges rainforests in the south, generally east
of the Great Dividing Range. Some observations have been made on its western slopes, up to 300 km
inland at locations such as Palmgrove National Park and Barakula State Forest in Qld (Mathieson and
Smith 2009) although some inland records may involve misidentifications of the Painted Button-quail
(Turnix varius). The closest confirmed records to the project area come from the Bunya Mountains.
Potential habitat is mapped for this species using RE associations. The map is contained at the end of
this SMP.
None recorded to date within the Gas Field.
The Black-breasted Button-quail is a large, plump, pale-eyed bird. Females are slightly larger than males
and measure up to 19cm and weighing up to 100g (Marchant and Higgins 1993). The sexes differ in
plumage with males having finely patterned backs, wings with brown, black, grey and white mottling and
face and throat are whitish and the breast is black with numerous white half-moon markings. The female
is similar in all respects except for having a black face and throat, a larger dark area over the upper and
lower breast with heavier white half-moon markings. The bill is grey and the legs are pale yellow.
Juveniles resemble males but are duller (Marchant and Higgins 1993).
305
QGC 2015
Revision 5
Males, juveniles and immature birds may be confused with Painted Button-quail which sometimes occur
in the drier parts of the environment occupied by Black-breasted Button-quail (Marchant and Higgins
1993).
This species forages using a pivoting action, in which individuals dig amongst leaf litter with their feet,
pivoting in a circular fashion. This foraging behaviour creates distinctive circular depressions in the leaf
litter called platelets (Hughes & Huges 1991; Marchant & Higgins 1993).
The species is polyandrous (female breeds with several males within a season), ground-dweller and
ground-nester, usually producing 3-4 young per clutch, which are incubated and tended solely by the
male. Black-breasted Button-quails are commonly seen in pairs or occasionally in small groups. Being
territorial, females are occasionally seen singly (Hughes and Hughes 1991; Marchant and Higgins 1993).
Habitat considered critical to the survival of the black-breasted button-quail includes:

Vine thickets and rainforest vegetation types that are periodically water-stressed. These include:
semi-evergreen vine thicket, low microphyll vine forest, Araucarian microphyll vine forest, Araucarian
notophyll vine forest and Brachychiton scrubs that may incorporate bottle trees (Brachychiton sp.),
Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla) and belah (Casuarina cristata);

Low thickets or woodlands with a dense understorey but little ground cover, typically dominated by
Acacia spp.; and

In littoral situations, dry vine scrubs, acacia thickets and areas densely covered in shrubs, particularly
Midgen Berry (Austromyrtus dulcis).
REs likely to provide potential habitat for the black-breasted button-quail include 11.8.3, 11.9.4, 11.9.4a,
11.9.4c, 11.9.5 and 11.9.5a. Short descriptions of these REs are presented in the table below.
Table 1 – Regional Ecosystems know to support Turnix melanogaster
RE Code
Short Description
11.8.3
Semi-evergreen vine thicket on Cainozoic igneous rocks.
11.9.4
Semi-evergreen vine thicket on fine grained sedimentary rocks
11.9.4a
11.9.4c
11.9.5
11.9.5a
Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristata open-forest on fine-grained
sedimentary rocks
General Threats
Threats faced by the Black-breasted Button-quail include:

Loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation due to clearing for a range of purposes (timber-harvesting
and other forestry-related practices, agriculture, infrastructure construction and urban development);

Habitat degradation as a result of domestic stock and feral pigs utilising black-breasted button-quail
habitat;

Habitat loss or degradation due to inappropriate fire regimes; and

Predation by feral animals.
Development
306
QGC 2015
Revision 5

Loss of habitat during construction;

The removal of vegetative cover may increase vulnerability to predation as the species nests, roosts
and feeds on the ground.

Disturbance by noise and light pollution;

Increased likelihood and intensity of fire;

Increased likelihood of weed invasion leading to habitat alteration.
Operation and Decommissioning

Disturbance by noise and light pollution;

Increased likelihood and intensity of fire;

Increased likelihood of weed invasion leading to habitat degradation.
As the Black-breasted Button-quail has not been identified as occurring within the Gas Field, the primary
management strategy is to focus on the identification, avoidance and protection of individuals,
populations, and habitat and breeding areas. Various mitigation measures outlining how this will occur
are detailed in the following section.
Should the species or their habitat be identified, and impacts confirmed, the management strategies
outlined in Section 4.1 of the QCLNG Gas Field SSMP will be applied.
Should a Black-breasted Button-quail breeding place be identified and it is determined that disturbance
or tampering to the breeding site is unavoidable the management strategy will be to follow the
procedures outlined in the Species Management Plan - Tampering with Breeding Place of a Protected
Animal Species (QCLNG-BG00-ENV-RPT-000004).
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures to minimise Project impacts on the Black-breasted Button-quail are:

Following a desktop assessment, scouting surveys will be undertaken in order to identify if any
suitable habitat (including microhabitat) will be impacted by the proposed clearing activities. If there is
potential for suitable habitat to be adversely impacted, targeted surveys will be undertaken in order to
confirm the presence/absence of species;

The EPBC Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened birds (2010) recommend that (for sites less
than 50 ha) the survey methodology for Black Breasted Button Quail should consist of area searches
(in accordance with page 18 of the guidelines) over a period of 3 days and a minimum of 15 person
hours. These survey methodologies will be implemented where appropriate and practicable;


crews of the presence of the Black-breasted Button-quail and particularly any nesting sites in the
area;


Prior to clearing, limits of clearing areas including “no go” zones delineating Black-breasted Buttonquail nesting sites identified during pre-clearance surveys will be clearly marked out with appropriate
flagging material and/or barricade webbing as determined by the site Environment Representative;

These areas will be recorded and all possible measures shall be taken to avoid disturbing any such
sites, including the reduction of the clearance area or relocation of any associated site infrastructure;

Due to the location of nests (on ground) and the ground dwelling nature of the birds, all vehicles and
307
QGC 2015
Revision 5
pedestrians are to remain within the designated access tracks;

Measures will be taken to avoid any injury to the Black-breasted Button-quail at all times, however if
any injured birds are found they shall be transported to a veterinarian or recognised wildlife carer
immediately for treatment;

All recorded sightings of the Black-breasted Button-quail, the locations of any nesting sites and any
relocations which may be required will be reported to the relevant authority as part of the Project
reporting;



design:
-
electrical fence ribbon should be co-located with the top strand of barbed wire, or
-
plastic bunting (or warning tags) should be attached to the top strand of barbed wire



firefighting equipment will be available at high risk construction sites to manage any fires that may
start up and to avoid wildfires breaking out; and

Should non-compliance with the mitigation measures or management strategies outlined in this
SSMP occur on site an investigation shall be undertaken by all responsible parties followed by
corrective action procedures if required. Work in the area will cease at the time of the non-compliance
if the incident is deemed significant by the site Environment Representative.
infrastructure establishment. Natural regeneration of disturbed areas will be encouraged after
construction activities and also at the conclusion of the Project. Further detail on rehabilitation is provided
in the Gas Field RRRMP.
party) by a qualified ecologist to identify the presence / absence of the Black-breasted Button-quail and
nests. Refer to Section 4.1 for more detail.
Avoidance of nesting sites where possible.
Successful relocation of nests where practicable.
Monitoring
An appropriate monitoring program, incorporating the monitoring of any offset site where applicable, will
be established in conjunction with the relevant authority once any impact to the Black-breasted Buttonquail is identified. Monitoring of rehabilitation areas will be undertaken as detailed in the Gas Field
RRRMP
308
QGC 2015
Revision 5
References
Atlas of Living Australia (2015), Available from
http://bie.ala.org.au/species/Turnix+%28Austroturnix%29+melanogaster, Accessed 13 January 2015.
Hughes, P. and Hughes, B. (1991), Notes on the Black-breasted Button-Quail at Widgee, Queensland.
Australian Bird Watcher 14, 113-118.
Marchant, S. and Higgins, P.J. eds. (1993). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds.
Volume 2 - Raptors to Lapwings. Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press.
Mathieson, M. and Smith, G. (2009). National recovery plan for the black-breasted button-quail Turnix
melanogaster [Online] The State of Queensland, Department of the Environment and Resource
Management.
Available
from:
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/pubs/black-breasted-buttonquail.pdf, Accessed 29 November 2010.
Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS) (1997) Turnix melanogaster Factsheet.
309
QGC 2015
Revision 5
Ö TAROOM
Ö
150°E
151°E
Ö
Ö
CAIRNS
Ö
Ö
TOWNSVILLE
Ö
Ö
26°S
Q
Ö
Ö
MACKAY
26°S
CLERMONT
Ö
Ö
Bowen Basin
WANDOAN
Ö
Ö
LE
Ö
Ö
GLADSTONE
IC
H
H
AR
Cooper Basin
ROMA
Ö
Ö
DT
Surat Basin
CHINCHILLA
Ö
Ö
BRISBANE
HI
GH
WA
N
N ee w
w S
S oo uu tt hh W
W aa ll ee ss
Y
Ö
DULACCA
Ö
Ö
MILES
WA
RRE
GO
HIG
HW
AY
Ö
Ö
CHINCHILLA
JANDOWAE
Ö
Ö
RO M
A
CO ND AM
I NE ROA D
27°S
27°S
Ö
Ö
TARA
RDT
HHA
L EI C
W
HIG H
AY
Ö
Ö
MO
O
E
NI
HI
GH
AY
W
150°E
151°E
PLAN 49 - BLACK BREASTED BUTTON QUAIL Turnix melanogaster
±
0
10
20
40
DATA SOURCE:
Town/City
Principal Road
Kilometers
Ö
Ö
SCALE:
1:650,000 (A3)
Secondary Road
Turnix melanogaster
Indicative habitat
QCLNG Project Area
Tenements - DNRM
MAP NO:
LN-pagew01
M_39786_47
7.6
MAMMALS
7.6.1
CHALINOLOBUS DWYERI (LARGE-EARED PIED BAT)
Chalinolobus dwyeri (Large-eared Pied Bat)
Chalinolobus dwyeri (Photo: © Michael Pennay)
Chalinolobus dwyeri Occurrence Records Map
(Atlas of Living Australia, 2015)
Vulnerable
Vulnerable
Known Distribution
The current distribution of this species is also poorly known. Records exist from Shoalwater Bay, north of
Rockhampton, Queensland, through to the vicinity of Ulladulla, in the south of New South Wales (Hoye
2005).
In Queensland, further records are known from sandstone escarpments in the Carnarvon, Expedition
Ranges and Blackdown Tablelands. It is likely that these areas support a high proportion of the
Queensland population of the Large-eared Pied Bat, although estimates of the number of individuals
present and their distribution in these areas has not been established. Additional records exist in the
Scenic Rim near the New South Wales / Queensland border. The populations in this area appear to be
reliant on the presence of roosts in volcanic rock types (Hoye 2005).
Potential habitat has been mapped for this species using RE associations. The map is contained at the
end of this individual SMP.
Field surveys made a tentative record of this species in Gurulmundi State Forest.
The Large-eared Pied Bat is a small to medium-sized black bat measuring approximately 10cm including
the head and tail with long ears. It has broad white lateral stripes that join to form a V-shape (DoE 2015).
311
QGC 2015
Revision 5
of Mammalogy 47: 716-718.
Department of the Environment (DoE) (2015). Chalinolobus dwyeri in Species Profile and Threats
Database, DoE, Canberra, Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat.
Department of the Environment, Heritage, Water and the Arts (DEWHA) (2010). Survey guidelines for
Australia’s threatened bats, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Duncan, A., Baker, G.B. and Montgomery, N. (1999). The Action Plan for Australian Bats. Environment
Australia.
Hoye, G.A. (2005). Recovery plan for the Large-eared Pied Bat Chalinolobus dwyeri, Brisbane,
Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service.
Hoye, G.A. and P.D. Dwyer (1995). Large-eared pied bat Chalinolobus dwyeri. In: Stahan, R, ed. The
Mammals of Australia. Page(s) 510-511. Chatswood, NSW: Reed Books.
Pennay, M. (2008). A maternity roost of the Large-eared Pied Bat Chalinolobus dwyeri (Ryan)
(Microchiroptera: Vespertilionidae) in central New South Wales Australia. Australian Zoologist 34:564-569.
Schulz, M. (1998). Bats and other fauna in disused Fairy Martin Hirundo arial nests. Emu 98:184-191.
317
QGC 2015
Revision 5
Ö TAROOM
Ö
150°E
151°E
Ö
Ö
CAIRNS
Ö
Ö
TOWNSVILLE
Ö
Ö
26°S
Q
Ö
Ö
MACKAY
26°S
CLERMONT
Ö
Ö
Bowen Basin
WANDOAN
Ö
Ö
LE
Ö
Ö
GLADSTONE
IC
H
H
AR
Cooper Basin
ROMA
Ö
Ö
DT
Surat Basin
CHINCHILLA
Ö
Ö
BRISBANE
HI
GH
WA
N
N ee w
w S
S oo uu tt hh W
W aa ll ee ss
Y
Ö
DULACCA
Ö
Ö
MILES
WA
RRE
GO
HIG
HW
AY
Ö
Ö
CHINCHILLA
JANDOWAE
Ö
Ö
RO M
A
CO ND AM
I NE ROA D
27°S
27°S
Ö
Ö
TARA
RDT
HHA
L EI C
W
HIG H
AY
Ö
Ö
MO
O
E
NI
HI
GH
AY
W
150°E
151°E
PLAN 50 - LARGE-EARED PIED BAT Chalinolobus dwyeri
±
0
10
20
40
DATA SOURCE:
Town/City
Principal Road
Kilometers
Ö
Ö
SCALE:
1:650,000 (A3)
Secondary Road
Chalinolobus dwyeri
Indicative habitat
QCLNG Project Area
Tenements - DNRM
MAP NO:
LN-pagew01
M_39786_48
7.6.2
NYCTOPHILUS CORBENI (SOUTH-EASTERN LONG-EARED BAT) PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS N.
TIMORIENSIS
Nyctophilus corbeni (South-eastern Long-eared Bat)
Nyctophilus corbeni (Photo: Bruce Thomson)
Nyctophilus corbeni Occurrence Records Map (Atlas of
Living Australia, 2015)
Vulnerable
Vulnerable
Known Distribution
The South-eastern Long-eared Bat was formerly considered to be a distinct form of the Greater Longeared Bat Nyctophilus timoriensis complex (Parnaby 1988; Duncan et al. 1999). This former taxonomy is
reflected in the common and scientific names under which the species is listed in State nature
conservation legislation, and in the scientific literature. However, the species was very recently formally
described as a separate species and is now called, Nyctophilus corbeni (Parnaby 2009).
The South-eastern Long-eared Bat is found from eastern South Australia, through the slopes and plains of
New South Wales and into central southern Qld. Throughout its distribution it appears to be uncommon
with scattered populations (Turbill and Ellis 2006).
Records also indicate populations in River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) forests along the Murray
River (Law and Anderson 1999). In Queensland, the South-eastern Long-eared Bat is mainly recorded in
the Brigalow Belt South Bioregion, extending eastwards to the Bunya Mountains National Park. It has
been recorded as far north as the Expedition Range and Dawson River areas. Its westerly range extends
into the Mulgalands Bioregion and west of Bollon. There are limited records in Victoria, with patchy
distributions in the Northern Plains and Mallee regions (Lumsden 1994; Koehler 2006).
end of this individual SMP – Plan 60: South-eastern Long-eared Bat potential habitat.
319
QGC 2015
Revision 5
Once specimen was recorded in the southern portion of the Gas Field in the Condamine State Forest. This
species has also been recorded within 25km of Gurulmundi State Forest (DEHP 2013).
The South-eastern Long-eared Bat has a head and body length of 50-75 mm and a tail length of 35-50
mm. This species is distinguishable from other long-eared bats by its larger size as well as a broader skull
and jaw. It is also geographically separated from other long-eared bats (Van Dyck and Strahan 2008).
The South-eastern Long-eared Bat is an insectivorous bat. Food can be taken in flight, by gleaning
vegetation or ground foraging (Lumsden and Bennett 2000; Van Dyck and Strahan 2008). In flight, it
commonly feeds on beetles, bugs, and moths (Lumsden and Bennett 2000); however, it has also been
recorded feeding on grasshoppers and crickets.
Foraging activities are concentrated around patches of trees in the landscape. Individuals appear to have
defined foraging areas which they return to; they do not defend foraging areas and many individual from
different species may share the same area.
There is little information currently available on this species' reproductive biology. Pregnant and lactating
females have been trapped in November in central-western New South Wales and Queensland
suggesting a similar breeding cycle to other sympatric long-eared bat species (Schulz and Lumsden
2010).
The South-eastern Long-eared Bat occurs in a range of inland woodland vegetation types, including box,
ironbark and cypress pine woodlands (DoE 2015).
The species also occurs in Bulloak woodland, Brigalow woodland, Belah woodland, Smooth-barked Apple,
Angophora leiocarpa, woodland; River Red Gum, Eucalyptus camaldulensis, forests lining watercourses
and lakes (DoE 2015).
Throughout inland Queensland, the species habitat is dominated by various eucalypt and bloodwood
species and various types of tree mallee with it being most abundant in vegetation with a distinct canopy
and a dense cluttered shrub layer (Lumsden 1994; Parnaby 1995; Ellis et al. 1999; McFarland et al. 1999;
Dominelli 2000; Koehler 2006; Turbill and Ellis 2006).
There are a small number of records from closed forest adjacent to dry sclerophyll woodlands; in
Araucarian notophyll vine forest in the Bunya Mountains and in semi evergreen vine thickets on the banks
of the Dawson River and in the Brigalow Belt Bioregion (Pennay 2002; Venz et al. 2002).
REs likely to provide potential habitat for this species includes; 11.3.1, 11.3.1b, 11.3.1d, 11.3.2, 11.3.2a,
11.3.2b, 11.3.14, 11.3.17, 11.3.18, 11.3.19, 11.3.26, 11.4.3, 11.4.3a, 11.4.3b, 11.4.7, 11.4.10, 11.4.12,
11.4.12a, 11.5.1, 11.5.1a, 11.5.4, 11.5.4a, 11.5.5, 11.5.5a, 11.5.5c, 11.5.20, 11.5.21, 11.7.1, 11.7.4,
11.7.4c, 11.7.6, 11.7.7, 11.8.3, 11.9.1, 11.9.4, 11.9.4a, 11.9.4c, 11.9.5, 11.9.5a, 11.9.7, 11.9.7a, 11.10.1,
11.10.1a, 11.10.1d, 11.10.3, 11.10.7, 11.10.7a, 11.10.9, 11.10.11 and 11.10.11a. Short descriptions of
these REs are presented in the table below.
Table 2 - – Regional Ecosystems known to support Nyctophilus corbeni
RE Code
Short Description
11.3.1
Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristata open-forest on alluvial plains
11.3.1b
11.3.1d
11.3.2
320
Eucalyptus populnea woodland on alluvial plains
QGC 2015
Revision 5
11.3.2a
11.3.2b
11.3.14
Eucalyptus spp., Angophora spp., Callitris spp. woodland on alluvial plains.
11.3.17
Eucalyptus populnea woodland with Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina
cristata on alluvial plains
11.3.18
Eucalyptus populnea, Callitris glaucophylla, Allocasuarina luehmannii shrubby
woodland on alluvium
11.3.19
Callitris glaucophylla, Corymbia spp. and/or Eucalyptus melanophloia openforest to woodland on Cainozoic alluvial plains
11.3.26
Eucalyptus moluccana or E. microcarpa woodland to open-forest on margins of
alluvial plains
11.4.3
Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristata shrubby open-forest on Cainozoic
clay plains
11.4.3a
11.4.3b
11.4.7
Eucalyptus populnea with Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristata openforest to woodland on Cainozoic clay plains
11.4.10
Eucalyptus populnea or E. woollsiana, Acacia harpophylla, Casuarina cristata
open-forest to woodland on margins of Cainozoic clay plains
11.4.12
Eucalyptus populnea woodland on Cainozoic clay plains
11.4.12a
11.5.1, 11.5.1a
Eucalyptus crebra, Callitris glaucophylla, Angophora leiocarpa, Allocasuarina
luehmannii woodland on Cainozoic sandplains/remnant surfaces
11.5.4, 11.5.4a
Eucalyptus crebra, Callitris glaucophylla, C. endlicheri, E. chloroclada,
Angophora leiocarpa on Cainozoic sandplains/remnant surfaces. Deep sands
11.5.5,
11.5.5a,
11.5.5c
Eucalyptus melanophloia, Callitris glaucophylla woodland on Cainozoic
sandplains/remnant surfaces. Deep red sands
11.5.20
Eucalyptus moluccana and/or E. microcarpa/ E. woollsiana +/- E. crebra
woodland on Cainozoic sandplains
11.5.21
Corymbia bloxsomei +/- Callitris glaucophylla +/- Eucalyptus crebra +/Angophora leiocarpa woodland on Cainozoic sandplains/remnant surfaces
11.7.1
Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristata and Eucalyptus thozetiana or E.
microcarpa woodland on lower scarp slopes on Cainozoic lateritic duricrust
11.7.4, 11.7.4c
Eucalyptus decorticans and/or Eucalyptus spp., Corymbia spp., Acacia spp.,
Lysicarpus angustifolius on Cainozoic lateritic duricrust
11.7.6
Corymbia citriodora or Eucalyptus crebra woodland on Cainozoic lateritic
duricrust
11.7.7
Eucalyptus fibrosa subsp. nubila +/- Corymbia sp. +/- Eucalyptus spp. on
Cainozoic lateritic duricrust
11.8.3
Semi-evergreen vine thicket on Cainozoic igneous rocks
321
QGC 2015
Revision 5
11.9.1
Acacia harpophylla-Eucalyptus cambageana open-forest to woodland on finegrained sedimentary rocks
11.9.4,
11.9.4a,
11.9.4c
Semi-evergreen vine thicket on fine grained sedimentary rocks
11.9.5 11.9.5a
Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristata open-forest on fine-grained
sedimentary rocks
11.9.7, 11.9.7a
Eucalyptus populnea, Eremophila mitchellii shrubby woodland on fine-grained
sedimentary rocks
11.9.10
Eucalyptus populnea, Acacia harpophylla open-forest on fine-grained
sedimentary rocks
11.10.1,
11.10.1a
Corymbia citriodora open-forest on coarse-grained sedimentary rocks
11.10.1d
11.10.3
Acacia catenulata or A. shirleyi open-forest on coarse-grained sedimentary
rocks. Crests and scarps
11.10.7,
11.10.7a
Eucalyptus crebra woodland on coarse-grained sedimentary rocks
11.10.9
Callitris glaucophylla woodland on coarse-grained sedimentary rocks
11.10.11,
11.10.11a
Eucalyptus populnea, E. melanophloia +/- Callitris glaucophylla woodland on
coarse-grained sedimentary rocks
General Threats
Due to the lack of data available, assessment of threats is difficult.
Broad-scale vegetation clearing is likely to be a key threat in many areas. This leads to habitat destruction
and fragmentation. Prior to European settlement, mallee and woodland habitats were extensive across
inland eastern Australia. Agriculture is the main cause of habitat fragmentation; this is a threat as trapping
surveys show the species displays a preference for larger habitats.
Increased fire frequencies destroy understorey vegetation and this may be a key microhabitat feature for
this species.
The South-eastern Long-eared Bat is believed to forage on low ground and shrubs (DoE 2015). High
density grazing around such regions destroys shrubs and limits the regeneration of the habitat.
Overgrazing by feral species such as the rabbit may also pose a threat to this bat.
The availability of suitable roosting habitats is essential for the presence of bat populations. The Southeastern Long-eared Bat is known to roost in deadwood or hollow trunks / branches from 25mm – 30mm in
size and frequently under bark. Standard forestry practices remove such items from the environment and
are hence considered a potential threat.
Impacts to this species are projected to be quite low, since no broad scale clearing of remnant vegetation
will occur in any areas. The species is also highly mobile across habitats, which should ensure that
populations are not fragmented.
The only other impact may be due to the loss of large riverine, hollow-bearing trees; however, preclearance surveys will identify such trees and will be avoided wherever possible.
322
QGC 2015
Revision 5
Development

Loss of habitat during construction;

Damage or disturbance to roosting habitat;

Loss of mature hollow bearing trees;

Increased competition for tree hollows by feral species and species which may benefit from the
disturbance;

Mortality during clearing activities; and

Increased likelihood of fire.
Operation

Disturbance to foraging by light pollution;

Disturbance to roosting/breeding by noise pollution; and

Increased likelihood and intensity of fire.
Decommissioning

Disturbance to foraging by light pollution, and

Disturbance to roosting/breeding by noise pollution.
The primary management strategy is to focus on the identification, avoidance and protection of individuals,
populations, habitat and roosting sites.
Various mitigation measures outlining how this will occur are detailed in the following section.
Should the species be identified, and impacts confirmed, the management strategies outlined in Section
4.1 of the QCLNG Gas Field SSMP will be applied.
Should a South-eastern Long-eared Bat breeding place (i.e. roost in trees) be identified and it is
determined that disturbance or tampering to the breeding site is unavoidable the management strategy will
be to follow the procedures outlined in the Species Management Plan - Tampering with Breeding Place of
a Protected Animal Species (QCLNG-BG00-ENV-RPT-000004).
Offset sites will potentially be established for unavoidable impacts to EPBC listed fauna species habitat.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures to minimise Project impacts on South-eastern Long-eared Bat are:

Following the desktop assessment, scouting surveys will be undertaken in order to identify if there is
any suitable habitat (or micro-habitat) impacted by the proposed clearing activities. If there is potential
for suitable habitat to be adversely impacted, targeted surveys will be undertaken in order to confirm
the presence/absence of species.
Where appropriate and practicable, and in accordance with the EPBC Survey guidelines for Australia’s
threatened bats (DEWHA 2010) targeted surveys for the South-eastern Long-eared Bat should be
undertaken on warmer nights from October through to April. The following survey methods are
recommended by the guidelines and will be implemented where appropriate and practicable:
323
-
Passive acoustic detection: Bat detectors can be used to identify areas used by long-eared bats,
even if they cannot be identified to species level. Acoustic detection can then be followed up with
an appropriate level of trapping.
-
Trapping: Mist nets and harp traps should be placed in woodland, mallee and forest, given that the
species forages below the tree canopy, often to ground level. Equipment should be placed both in
open fly-ways and within cluttered vegetation. If open water bodies (earth dams, fire dams, open
QGC 2015
Revision 5
top tanks and watercourses) occur in or near the project area, then significant effort should be
given to mist-netting or harp trapping over the water. For project sites where there is no surface
water, mist nets can be set over temporary water pools specifically constructed for the purpose of
the survey. For sites less than 50 ha (for sites greater than 50 ha, appropriate survey methods
should be confirmed with DoE) a combination of the following trapping techniques should be
employed:
Survey technique
Total effort
Minimum number of nights
Harp traps
20 trap nights
5
Mist nets
20 mist-net nights
5


crews of the presence of this species and particularly any roosts in the area;


Prior to clearing, limits of clearing areas including “no go” zones delineating roost sites identified
during pre-clearance surveys will be clearly marked out with appropriate flagging material and/or
barricade webbing as determined by the site Environment Representative;

Pre-clearance survey to be undertaken by suitably qualified, experienced and licensed fauna catchers
prior to any clearing activities being undertaken. If roosting sites for the South-eastern Long-eared Bat
are identified within the clearance area or within close proximity to it, these sites shall be clearly
marked out as a ‘no go’ zone with appropriate flagging material and/or barricade webbing as
determined by the site Environment Representative. An appropriate buffer zone as determined by the
licensed fauna spotter catcher shall also be applied and marked out around the roost site. These
areas shall be recorded by GPS and mapped in the Environmental Constraints Mapping as temporary
‘no go’ zones until management actions are finalised;

Clearing activities shall carry on around the outside of any defined buffer zone until appropriate actions
to manage the roost site have been determined in conjunction with the licensed fauna spotter catcher.
A monitoring programme to determine potential construction impacts to the roost shall be implemented
during the construction period as per the monitoring section of this SSMP;

All possible measures shall be taken to avoid disturbing any roost site including the reduction of the
clearance area or relocation of any associated site infrastructure. If any previously unidentified high
value roost areas such as caves are discovered during a pre-clearance survey, construction activities
shall cease at this location and alternative construction techniques that will not compromise the
stability of sandstone ridges containing the caves/roosts shall be investigated;

If it is determined that an active roost cannot be avoided actions will be put in place as identified in the
Species Management Plan - Tampering with Breeding Place of a Protected Animal Species (QCLNGBG00-ENV-RPT-000004). This will include ensuring a licensed and experienced fauna spotter catcher
who is in possession of appropriate permits for fauna relocation is onsite during all clearing activities
and that any injured bats are transported to an appropriate veterinarian or wildlife carer immediately;

In areas where South-eastern Long-eared Bat are identified and breeding sites are removed as part of
clearing activities, habitat creation activities shall be undertaken, including the installation of artificial
roost sites in appropriate locations outside the clearing area as determined by the licensed fauna
spotter catcher;

All recorded sightings of South-eastern Long-eared Bat, the locations of any breeding sites and any
relocations which may be required will be reported to the relevant authority as part of the Project
reporting;
324
QGC 2015
Revision 5



design:
- electrical fence ribbon should be co-located with the top strand of barbed wire, or
- plastic bunting (or warning tags) should be attached to the top strand of barbed wire.



firefighting equipment will be available at high risk construction sites to manage any fires that may start
up and to avoid wildfires breaking out; and

In areas where South-eastern Long-eared Bat are identified and breeding sites are removed as part of
clearing activities, habitat creation activities shall be undertaken, including the installation of artificial roost
sites in appropriate locations outside the clearing area as determined by the licensed fauna spotter catcher.
Field RRRMP.
Pre-clearance surveys are undertaken of each planned infrastructure area (also known as a pegging party)
by a qualified ecologist to identify the presence / absence of the South-eastern Long-eared Bat or their
roost sites.
Avoidance of roost sites where possible.
Successful establishment of artificial roost sites where appropriate.
Monitoring
If a South-eastern Long-eared Bat roost is identified and located within or in close proximity to the
clearance area, a monitoring programme to capture any potential disturbance impacts arising from
construction activities will be developed in accordance with the Survey Guidelines for Australia’s
threatened Bats. The monitoring programme shall continue for the duration during which any construction
related activities are being carried out which may have a potential impact on the roost site.
Any installed artificial roost sites will be monitored yearly for successful occupation by the bats.
An additional monitoring program, incorporating the monitoring of any offset site, will be established in
conjunction with the relevant authority once an impact to the South-eastern Long-eared Bat is identified
and quantified.
325
QGC 2015
Revision 5
References
Atlas of Living Australia (2015), Available from http://bie.ala.org.au/species/Nyctophilus+corbeni, Accessed
13 January 2015.
Department of the Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) (2013) Wildlife Online Extract. The
Department
of
the
Environment
and
Heritage
Protection,
Brisbane.
Available:
http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/wildlife-online/index.html, Accessed December 2013.
Department of the Environment, Heritage, Water and the Arts (DEWHA) (2010). Survey guidelines for
Australia’s threatened bats, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Department of the Environment (2015). Nyctophilus corbeni in Species Profile and Threats Database,
DoE, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed 5 January 2015.
Dominelli, S. (2000). Distribution, roost requirements and foraging behaviour of the Greater Long-eared
Bat (Nyctophilus timoriensis) and the Little Pied Bat (Chalinolobus picatus) in the Bookmark Biosphere
Reserve. Unpublished report. Unpublished report to the Bookmark Biosphere Trust, South Australia.
Duncan, A, Baker, G.B. and Montgomery, N. (1999). The Action Plan for Australian Bats. Environment
Australia.
Ellis, M., Lumsden, L. Schulz, M. Reardon, T. Richards G. and Hoye, G. (1999). Eastern Long-eared Bat.
Pp. 42-43. In: Duncan, A., G.B. Baker, and N. Montgomery. (Eds.). The Action Plan for Australian Bats.
Canberra: Environment Australia.
Koehler, S. (2006). New record of a Greater Long-eared Bat in Victoria. Australasian Bat Society
Newsletter 26: 43-44.
Law, B. and Anderson, J. (1999). A survey for the Southern Myotis Myotis macropus (Vespertilionidae) and
other bat species in River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis forests of the Murray River, New South
Wales. Australian Zoologist 31:166-174.
Lumsden, L.F. (1994). The distribution, habitat and conservation status of the Greater Long-eared Bat
Nyctophilus timoriensis in Victoria. Victorian Naturalist 111: 4-9.
Lumsden, L. and Bennett A. (2000). Bats in rural landscapes: a significant but largely unknown faunal
component. T. Barlow and R. Thorburn, eds. Bushcare Grassy Landscapes Conference. Page(s) 42-50.
Canberra: Environment Australia, Biodiversity Group.
McFarland, D., Venz, M. and Reis, T. (1999). Priority Species Summaries. An attachment to the report:
Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna of the Brigalow Belt South Bioregion: Assessment and Analysis for
Conservation Planning. Brisbane: Biodiversity Planning, Environmental Protection Agency.
Parnaby, H. (1995). Greater Long-eared Bat Nyctophilus timoriensis. Chatswood, NSW: Reed Books.
Schulz, M. and Lumsden, L. (2010). (Draft) National Recovery Plan for the South-eastern Long-eared Bat
Nyctophilus corbeni. Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment.
Turbill, C. and Ellis, M. (2006). Distribution and abundance of the south eastern form of the Greater Longeared Bat Nyctophilus timoriensis. Australian Mammalogy 28:1-7.
Van Dyck, S. and Strahan, R. (2008). The Mammals of Australia, Third Edition. Page(s) 880. Sydney:
Reed New Holland.
326
QGC 2015
Revision 5
Ö TAROOM
Ö
150°E
151°E
Ö
Ö
CAIRNS
Ö
Ö
26°S
TOWNSVILLE
Ö
Ö
oo rr tt hh ee rr nn
ee rr rr ii tt oo rr yy
Q
Ö
Ö
MACKAY
26°S
CLERMONT
Ö
Ö
Bowen Basin
WANDOAN
LE
Ö
Ö
GLADSTONE
IC
Cooper Basin
H
Ö
Ö
ROMA
H
Ö
Ö
CHINCHILLA
AR
Surat Basin
DT
oo uu tt hh A
A uu ss tt rr aa ll ii aa
Ö
Ö
BRISBANE
HI
GH
WA
N
N ee w
w S
S oo uu tt hh W
W aa ll ee ss
Y
Ö
DULACCA
Ö
Ö
MILES
WA
RRE
GO
HIG
HW
AY
Ö
Ö
CHINCHILLA
JANDOWAE
Ö
Ö
RO M
A
CO ND AM
I NE ROA D
27°S
27°S
Ö
Ö
TARA
RDT
HHA
L EI C
W
HIG H
AY
Ö
Ö
MO
O
E
NI
HI
GH
AY
W
150°E
151°E
PLAN 51 - South-eastern Long-eared Bat Nyctophilus corbeni
±
0
10
20
40
DATA SOURCE:
Town/City
Principal Road
Kilometers
Ö
Ö
SCALE:
1:650,000 (A3)
Secondary Road
Nyctophilus corbeni Indicative
habitat
QCLNG Project
Tenements - DNRM
MAP NO:
LN-pagew01
M_39786_49
7.6.3
PTEROPUS POLICEPHALUS (GREY-HEADED FLYING-FOX)
Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey-headed Flying-fox)
Pteropus policephalus (Source: Bruce
Thomson)
Pteropus poliocephalus Occurrence Records Map (Atlas of
Living Australia, 2015)
Vulnerable
Least Concern
Known Distribution
The Grey-headed Flying-fox is Australia’s only endemic flying-fox in a coastal belt form south-eastern
Queensland to Melbourne, Victoria. Regular or frequently used camps have been located between
Rockhampton in Queensland south to around Mallacoota in East Gippsland, Victoria. Less consistent
records extend the south range of the species to Warrnambool, Victoria. They are generally recorded
between the western slopes of the Great Dividing Range. Recent surveys have located camps of this
species as far north as the Mackay region, with several records further south between Gladstone and
Bundaberg, Queensland. Despite one regular camp in Melbourne, the southern range of the species
appears to have considerably retracted (Tidemann 1998).
end of this individual SMP.
The Grey-headed Flying-fox has been found in the Gas Field tenement of Lauren Field, south of Miles.
No roost sites have been observed in the Gas Field therefore the species was likely to be foraging on
the nectar and pollen from the flowers of Eucalypts (genera Eucalyptus, Corymbia and Angophora)
species in the area.
328
QGC 2015
Revision 5
The Grey-headed Flying-fox is one of the largest bats in the world ranging in weight from 600g to 1000g
and having a length between 230mm and 289mm in head and body. Its appearance can be
distinguished by:

The collar is orange/brown fully encircling its neck;

The leg fur extends to the ankle;

The head is covered by light grey fur; and

The belly fur is grey, often with flecks of white and ginger.
The Grey-headed Flying-fox has a diverse native diet, which it supplements with introduced plants (Eby
1995, 1998; Parry-Jones and Augee 1991; Hall and Richards 2000). Nectar and pollen from the flowers
of Eucalypts (genera Eucalyptus, Corymbia and Angophora), Melaleucas and Banksias are the primary
food for the species (Duncan et al. 1999). Most eucalypts have regular seasonal flowering schedules but
do not flower every year and there are a few areas within the range of the Grey-headed Flying-fox
where nectar is available continuously (House 1997; Wilson and Bennett 1999; Law et al. 2000). The
species has no adaptations for withstanding food shortages and migrates in response to changes in the
amount and location of flowering (Eby 1991; Spencer et al. 1991; Eby and Lunney 2002). The species is
responsible for the seed dispersal of many rainforest trees, such as native figs and palms (Tidemann
1998). The Grey-headed Flying-fox will also feed on cultivated fruits like other species of Australian
flying-fox (Hall and Richards 2000).
The species commutes daily to foraging areas, usually within 15 km of the day roost site (Tidemann
1998). Grey-headed Flying-foxes are capable of nightly flights of up to 50 km from their roost to feeding
areas that shift as food resources change (Eby unpubl. cited in Eby 1991). In suitable winds Greyheaded Flying-foxes can cruise at speeds in excess of 35km per hour for extended periods (Tidemann
1998). At most times of the year there is a complete exodus from the colony site at dusk. The exception
to this rule occurs in spring and early summer when juveniles are left in the nursery colony sites at night.
During this time small groups of adult Grey-headed Flying-foxes leave the site more than an hour after
the majority of bats fly out. In nursery colonies Grey-headed Flying-foxes fly in and out of the site
throughout the night (Parry-Jones and Augee 1992).
Sexual maturity is generally not reached by females until three years of age (Martin 2000). However,
research in Martin’s breeding colony observed pregnancy occurring in some females whilst in their
second year (McIlwee and Martin 2002).
Mating occurs in early autumn, after which time the larger camps begin to break up, reforming in late
spring/early summer, as food resources become more abundant (Hall and Richards 2000). Males and
females segregate in October at the time females usually give birth. Lactation also usually begins in
October and continues for three to four months or sometimes longer (Nelson 1965b). Following six
months of gestation, females bear a single young each year. Twins are rare (Martin 2000). During
birthing, the female hangs by the feet and young are born headfirst and are positioned so that wings are
folded around the head (Nelson 1965b; Martin et al. 1987).
For a period of four to five weeks after giving birth, the mother carries her single young with her to
feeding sites. Young are carried on the ventral surface of their foraging mothers for four to five weeks
after birth (Tidemann 1998). Young are sometimes abandoned by their mothers, particularly when food
is short in early summer (Tidemann 1998). Once the young are completely furred, they are left in
maternal camps and continue to be nursed until they are independent after around 12 weeks (Hall and
Richards 2000). During this nursery phase, males re-join the females and attempt to court females with
pair bonds being formed (Hall and Richards 2000).
329
QGC 2015
Revision 5
In the wild, most adult female Grey-headed Flying-foxes conceive each year (Nelson 1965b; Towers
and Martin 1985, 1995). However, females are prone to abort (Dukelow et al. 1990) in response to
environmental stress and mass abortions and premature births are known to occur in the wild (Hall et al.
1991).
A natural mortality rate in the wild is believed to be between 15-20 years (Mcllwee and Martin 2002).
Heat-related deaths in Australian flying-foxes have been documented repeatedly over the years. In
2004, a heatwave in north-east NSW reaching 45 °C resulted in the death of an estimated 5000-7000
individuals. The study, conducted in the Bellingen Island (NSW) roost, reported a significant impact on
young bats less than 4 months old, as well as a decline in the percentage of adult females (Eby et al.
2004).
The Grey-headed Flying-fox requires foraging resources and roosting sites. It is a canopy-feeding
frugivore and nectarivore, which utilises vegetation communities including rainforests, open forests,
closed and open woodlands, Melaleuca swamps and Banksia woodlands.
It also feeds in introduced tree species in urban areas and in commercial fruit crops. The primary food
source is blossom from Eucalyptus and related genera but in some areas it also utilises a wide range of
rainforest fruits (Eby 1998). None of the vegetation communities used by the Grey-headed Flying-fox
produce continuous foraging resources throughout the year, and the species has adopted complex
migration traits in response to ephemeral and patchy food resources (Nelson 1965a; Spencer et al.
1991; Parry-Jones and Augee 1992; Eby 1996, 1998; Duncan et al. 1999).
The Grey-headed Flying-fox roosts in aggregations of various sizes on exposed branches, commonly of
emergent trees. Roost sites are typically located near water, such as lakes, rivers or the coast (van der
Ree et al. 2005). Roost vegetation includes rainforest patches, stands of Melaleuca, mangroves and
riparian vegetation (Ratcliffe 1931; Nelson 1965a), but colonies also use highly modified vegetation in
urban and suburban areas (Tidemann & Vardon 1997; Birt et al. 1998; van der Ree et al. 2005). The
species can maintain fidelity to roost sites for extended periods (Lunney and Moon 1997), although new
sites have been colonised in recent times (Tidemann and Vardon 1997).
REs likely to provide potential habitat include; 11.3.3, 11.3.4, 11.3.18, 11.3.19, 11.3.25, 11.3.26,
11.3.27b and 11.3.39. Short descriptions of these REs are presented in the table below.
Table 2 – Regional Ecosystems known to support Pteropus poliocephalus
RE Code
Short Description
11.3.3
Eucalyptus coolabah woodland on alluvial plains
11.3.4
Eucalyptus tereticornis and/or Eucalyptus spp. tall woodland on alluvial plains
11.3.18
Eucalyptus populnea, Callitris glaucophylla, Allocasuarina luehmannii shrubby
woodland on alluvium
11.3.19
Callitris glaucophylla, Corymbia spp. and/or Eucalyptus melanophloia woodland
on Cainozoic alluvial plains
11.3.25
Eucalyptus tereticornis or E. camaldulensis woodland fringing drainage lines
11.3.26
Eucalyptus moluccana or E. microcarpa woodland to open forest on margins of
alluvial plains
11.3.27b
Freshwater wetlands
11.3.39
Eucalyptus melanophloia +/- E. chloroclada woodland on undulating plains and
valleys with sandy soils
330
QGC 2015
Revision 5
General Threats
No critical habitat has been listed for the Grey-headed Flying-fox under the EPBC Act, and it is not
known to associate with nor is dependent on any other listed threatened species (DoE 2015).
General Threats:

Loss of foraging and roosting habitat throughout its distribution;

Direct killing of animals in orchards;

Harassment and destruction of roosts;

Competition with the Black Flying-fox (P. alecto) (and perhaps the Little Red Flying-fox (P.
scapulatus)) may be a threat to the Grey-headed Flying-fox;

Fragmentation of habitat;

Accumulation of lead and other pollutants in the environment;

Electrocution on power lines; and

Entanglement in netting and on barbed-wire.
Development

Potential clearing of foraging habitat;

Getting caught and injured on barbed wire fences;


Disturbance to foraging by noise pollution; and

Dust coating blossom (food resource).
Operation

Getting caught and injured on barbed wire fences;


Disturbance to foraging by noise pollution;

Dust coating blossom (food resource); and

Project impacts to groundwater are unlikely to impact this species.
Decommissioning

Distance to foraging by light pollution;

Disturbance to foraging by noise pollution; and

Dust coating blossom (food resource).
The Grey-headed Flying-fox has been observed in the Gas Field however no roost sites have been
identified. The primary management strategy is to focus on the identification, avoidance and protection
of individuals, populations, habitat and roosting sites.
Should the species be identified, and impacts confirmed, the management strategies outlined in
Section 4.1 of the QCLNG Gas Field SSMP will be applied.
331
QGC 2015
Revision 5
Should a Grey-headed Flying-fox breeding place (i.e. roost in trees) be identified and it is determined
that disturbance or tampering to the breeding site is unavoidable the management strategy will be to
follow the procedures outlined in the Species Management Plan - Tampering with Breeding Place of a
Protected Animal Species (QCLNG-BG00-ENV-RPT-000004).
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures to minimise Project impacts on Grey-headed Flying-fox are:

Prior to clearing activities the area should be traversed by qualified spotter catchers searching for
active roost areas or camps;

The EPBC Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened Bats (2010) recommend the following
survey methods be used for surveys:
-
Review of databases and available literature;
-
Daytime field surveys of suitable habitats for camp/roost sites;
-
Surveys of vegetation communities and food plants; and
-
Night time surveys.

Prior to clearing, limits of clearing areas will be clearly marked out and any occurrences of this
species which may be located on the periphery of the construction areas or in other locations where
clearing can be avoided or minimised will be identified as “no go” zones. Such areas will be clearly
marked out with appropriate flagging material and/or barricade webbing as determined by the site
Environment Representative;

If an active roosting site for the Grey-headed Flying-fox is identified within the clearance area or
within close proximity to it, these sites shall be clearly marked out as a ‘no go’ zone with
appropriate flagging material and/or barricade webbing as determined by the site Environment
Representative;

A 100 m buffer will be identified around any roost of the Grey-headed Flying-fox. Any works
required within the 100m buffer will require assessment and advice from a qualified ecologist;

The buffer shall be applied and marked out around the roost site. These areas shall be recorded by
GPS and mapped in the Environmental Constraints Mapping as temporary ‘no go’ zones until
management actions are finalised;

Clearing activities shall carry on around the outside of any defined buffer zone until appropriate
actions to manage the roost site have been determined in conjunction with the licensed fauna
spotter catcher. A monitoring programme to determine potential construction impacts to the roost
shall be implemented during the construction period as per the monitoring section of this SSMP;

environmental constraints occurring in that work location, including Grey-headed Flying-fox and any
other likely significant flora and fauna species and populations they may encounter;

crews of the species and particularly any roosts in the area and their habitat;

All possible measures shall be taken to avoid disturbing any roost site including the reduction of the
clearance area or relocation of any associated site infrastructure. If any previously unidentified high
value roost areas such as caves are discovered during a pre clear and grade walk, construction
activities shall cease at this location and alternative construction techniques that will not
compromise the stability of sandstone ridges containing the caves/roosts shall be investigated;

If it is determined that an active roost cannot be avoided actions will be put in place as identified in
the Species Management Plan - Tampering with Breeding Place of a Protected Animal Species
(QCLNG-BG00-ENV-RPT-000004). This will include ensuring a licensed and experienced fauna
spotter catcher who is in possession of appropriate permits for fauna relocation is onsite during all
clearing activities and that any injured bats are transported to an appropriate veterinarian or wildlife
332
QGC 2015
Revision 5
carer immediately;

In areas where Grey-headed Flying-fox are identified and breeding sites are removed as part of
clearing activities, habitat creation activities shall be undertaken, including the installation of
artificial roost sites in appropriate locations outside the clearing area as determined by the licensed
fauna spotter catcher;

Clearing is to be to be carried out in a sequential manner and in a way that directs escaping wildlife
away from clearing and into adjacent native vegetation or natural areas of their own volition.
Sequential clearing coupled with the slow nature of the clearing activities will take into account any
variation in landscape features such as rocky escarpments, riparian habitats and steep sloping
areas and provide fauna with sufficient time to exit the disturbance area;

All clearing activities will be carried out in a manner that will not result in the isolation of habitat,
habitat features or any noted fauna persisting within the construction areas. Sequential clearing
activities will provide safe escape routes for fauna and allow sufficient time for fauna spotter
catchers to identify any potential fauna habitat, habitat features or fauna for relocation prior to
clearing and identify this for consideration by the clearing team. Decisions will then be made jointly
between the spotter catchers and construction contractor as to the most appropriate clearing
method based on each situation and the surrounding landscape/geological features;

Where possible, when erecting any project related fencing the use of barb wire, particularly on the
top strand, is to be avoided to avoid birds and other fauna getting caught;

design:
-
-
plastic bunting (or warning tags) should be attached to the top strand of barbed wire.

Vertebrate pests will be managed in accordance with the Pest Management Plan for the Project;
Should roosting colonies be identified, adjacent to infrastructure requiring light, light shield will be
fitted to prevent light spillage into colonies. Light spillage has potential to impact nursery sites
leading to the death of juvenile bats;

Excessively hot or frequent fires are likely to have a negative impact on remnant vegetation and
possibly reduce flowering of Eucalypts and Melaleuca which are a primary food resource. The Site
Specific Fire Management Plan must be implemented to ensure that the Project activities do not
contribute in any way, to increased fire frequencies or severity. Fire management measures shall
take into account the need to protect remnant vegetation from frequent and hot fires. On site fire
management practices shall be in accordance with Contractor HSSE requirements, relevant
construction permits and method statements and appropriate dedicated firefighting equipment will
be available at high risk construction sites to manage any fires that may start up and to avoid
wildfires breaking out;

Infrastructure, particularly electrical, should be designed and constructed in accordance with APLIC
Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power-Lines: The State of the Art in 2005 in order to
minimise the risk of collision to flying wildlife (i.e. adequate clearance between energised and/or
grounded parts);

Dust suppression will be managed in accordance with the Operation Environmental Management
Plan for the Project, reducing potential for blossom smothering;

Maintain contact details for qualified veterinarian staff that can assess, treat or euthanize (as
necessary) any large native vertebrates;

Vehicle activities will be restricted to roads, access tracks and hardened surfaces wherever
possible to reduce the possibility of wildfire, spread of weeds and any potential impact on significant
or other species;

Implementation of the Pipeline Weed Management Action Plan will be undertaken to minimise the
impact of weeds on survival and reproduction of this species;

333
QGC 2015
Revision 5
SSMP occur on site an investigation shall be undertaken by all responsible parties to be followed
by corrective action procedures if required. Work in the area will cease at the time of the noncompliance if the incident is deemed significant by the site Environment Representative; and

Following the completion of clearing, the actual area of disturbance to this species will be recorded
in a register of clearance areas as per the method outlined in Section 4.1 of the QCLNG Gas Field
SSMP to enable calculation of disturbance areas and reconciliation against the QCLNG Offset
Program.
Rehabilitation will be progressively undertaken during construction following backfilling and completion
of infrastructure establishment. Natural regeneration of disturbed areas will be encouraged after
construction activities and also at the conclusion of the Project. Further detail on rehabilitation is
provided in the Gas Field RRRMP.
party) by a qualified ecologist to identify the presence / absence of the Grey-headed Flying-fox.
Monitoring
If a Grey-headed Flying-fox roost is identified and located within or in close proximity to the clearance
area, a monitoring programme to capture any potential disturbance impacts arising from construction
activities will be developed in accordance with the Survey Guidelines for Australia’s threatened Bats.
The monitoring programme shall continue for the duration during which any construction related
activities are being carried out which may have a potential impact on the roost site. An additional
monitoring program, incorporating the monitoring of any offset site, will be established in conjunction
with the relevant authority once an impact to the Grey-headed Flying-fox is identified and quantified.
References
Atlas of Living Australia (2015), Available from http://bie.ala.org.au/species/Pteropus+poliocephalus#,
Accessed 13 January 2015.
Department of the Environment (DoE) (2015). Pteropus poliocephalus in Species Profile and Threats
Database, DoE, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed 5 January
2015.
Duncan, A., Baker, G.B. and Montomery, N. (1999). The Action Plan for Australian Bats. [Online].
Environment
Australia,
Canberra:
Environment
Australia.
Available
from:
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/action/bats/index.htm
Eby, P. (1991). Seasonal Movements of Grey-headed Flying-foxes, Pteropus poliocephalus (Chiroptera:
Pteropodidae), from Two Maternity Camps in Northern New South Wales, Wildlife Research 18: 547559.
Eby, P. (1995). The biology and management of flying foxes in NSW. In: Species Management Report,
No 18. Hurstville, NSW Parks and Wildlife Service.
Eby, P. (1998). An analysis of diet specialization in frugivore Pteropus poliocephalus in Australian
subtropical rainforest. Australian Journal of Ecology, 23:443-456.
Eby, P. and Lunney, D. (2002). Managing the Grey-headed Flying-Fox as a threatened species in NSW.
In: Proceedings of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, Sydney: Royal
Zoological Society of New South Wales.
Hall, L. and Richards, G. (2000). Flying Foxes: Fruit and Blossom of Australia. Sydney: University of
334
QGC 2015
Revision 5
New South Wales Press.
Hando, R. and Hando, V. (1997). Going bush with Chinchilla Nats. Second Edition. Chinchilla Field
Naturalist’s Club Inc, Chinchilla.
House, S.M. (1997), Reproductive Biology of Eucalypts. In: Williams, J and Woniarski, J (eds) Eucalypt
ecology: individuals to ecosystems. Cambridge University Press.
Law, C., Mackowski, L., Schoer, L. and Tweedie, T. (2000). Flowering phenology of myrtaceous trees
and relation to climatic, environmental and disturbance variables in northern New South Wales.
Australian Ecology, 25:160-178.
McFarland, D., Venz, M. and Reis, T. (1999). ‘Priority species summaries. An attachment to the report:
Terrestrial vertebrate fauna of the Brigalow Belt South Bioregion: Assessment and analysis for
conservation planning.’ Queensland Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane.
Nelson, J.E., (1965a). Movements of Australian flying-foxes (Pteropodidae: Megachiroptera). Australian
Journal of Zoology 13: 53–73.
Nelson, J. E. W. (1965b). Behaviour of Australian Pteropodidae (Megachiroptera). Animal Behaviour
13(4): 544–557.
Parry-Jones, K. and Augee, M.L. (1991). Food Selection by Grey-headed Flying Foxes (Pteropus
poliocephalus) Occupying a Summer Colony Site near Gosford, New South Wales. In: Wildlife Research
18: 111-124.
Spencer, H.J., Palmer, C. and Parry-Jones, K. (1991). Movements of fruit-bats in eastern Australia,
determined by using radio-tracking. Wildlife Research 18: 463-468.
Tidemann, C.R. (1998). Grey-headed Flying-Fox, Pteropus poliocephalus, Temminck, 1824. In: Strahan,
R (ed) The Mammals of Australia. Frenchs Forest, New Holland Publishers Pty Ltd.
Whitlock, F.L. (1919). Notes on birds breeding in Dampier Archipelago, NW coast of Australia. Emu
(18) 240-253.
Wilson, J. and Bennett, A. (1999). Patchiness of a floral resource: flowering of Red Ironbark Eucalyptus
tricarpa in a box and ironbark forest. Victorian Naturalist 116: 48-53.
335
QGC 2015
Revision 5
Ö TAROOM
Ö
150°E
151°E
Ö
Ö
CAIRNS
Ö
Ö
TOWNSVILLE
Ö
Ö
26°S
Q
Ö
Ö
MACKAY
26°S
CLERMONT
Ö
Ö
Bowen Basin
WANDOAN
Ö
Ö
LE
Ö
Ö
GLADSTONE
IC
H
H
AR
Cooper Basin
ROMA
Ö
Ö
CHINCHILLA
DT
Surat Basin
Ö
Ö
BRISBANE
HI
GH
WA
N
N ee w
w S
S oo uu tt hh W
W aa ll ee ss
Y
Ö
DULACCA
Ö
Ö
MILES
WA
RRE
GO
HIG
HW
AY
Ö
Ö
CHINCHILLA
JANDOWAE
Ö
Ö
RO M
A
CO ND AM
I NE ROA D
27°S
27°S
Ö
Ö
TARA
RDT
HHA
L EI C
W
HIG H
AY
Ö
Ö
MO
O
E
NI
HI
GH
AY
W
150°E
151°E
PLAN 52 - GREY- HEADED FLYING FOX Pteropus policephalus
±
0
10
20
40
DATA SOURCE:
Town/City
Principal Road
Kilometers
Ö
Ö
SCALE:
1:650,000 (A3)
Secondary Road
Pteropus poliocephalus
Indicative habitat
QCLNG Project
Tenements - DNRM
MAP NO:
LN-pagew01
M_39786_50
7.6.4
DASYURUS HALLUCATUS (NORTHERN QUOLL)
Dasyurus hallucatus (Northern Quoll)
Dasyurus hallucatus (Photo: Bruce Thomson)
Dasyurus hallucatus Occurrence Records Map (Atlas
of Living Australia, 2015)
Endangered
Least Concern
Northern Quolls are mainly nocturnal and are opportunistic omnivores, consuming various fruits as well as
insects and small mammals. Males are larger than females and occupy home ranges of approximately
100ha, overlapping several smaller home ranges occupied by females. They breed once per year and the
litter size average is seven. Males usually die at one year of age and females live for one to two years. In
flat, open grasslands, all males die after mating, but in rockier habitats, where the populations appear to be
less stressed, they may live for up to two years (DSEWPaC 2005).
Northern Quolls live in a range of habitats, but prefer rocky areas and eucalypt forests (DSEWPaC 2005).
Daytime den sites provide shelter and protection from predators and weather. They include rocky
outcrops, tree hollows, hollow logs, termite mounds, goanna burrows and human dwellings (Hill and Ward
2010).
In the Project area, they may occur around the sandstone escarpments of Gurulmundi State Forest and
occasional records are reported from elsewhere, such as the township of Dalby.
It is unlikely that any significant populations occur in the Project Area where development activities are
planned. Gurulmundi is included in the upstream CSG Fields, but no development is proposed for that
area.
General Threats
Populations may have initially been impacted by the introduction and spread of the Cane Toad (Rhinella
marina). General threats include:
 Loss or modification of habitat;
337
QGC 2015
Revision 5
 Inappropriate fire regimes;
 Invasion of exotic grasses, such as Gamba Grass (Andropogon gayanus), which promote intensive dry
season fires; and
 Predation by cats and foxes.
Development Threats

Clearing and disturbance of habitat;

Facilitated spread and/or increased abundance of Cane Toads (constructing lots of water bodies);

Altered fire regimes, and

Degradation and fragmentation of critical habitat areas, which need to be relatively large and free from
the degrading impacts of feral animals and fire.
Operational Threats

Altered fire regimes;

Increased predation due to increased presence of feral species, particularly cats;

Degradation of habitat by weed invasion from disturbed areas;

Disturbance from light pollution; and

Project impacts to groundwater are unlikely to impact this species.
Decommissioning Threats

Altered fire regimes;

Increased predation due to increased presence of feral species, particularly cats; and

Degradation of habitat by weed invasion from disturbed areas.
As the Northern Quoll has not been identified as occurring within the Gas Field, the primary management
strategy is to focus on the identification, avoidance and protection of individuals, populations, habitat and
breeding areas and to avoid injury or death in gathering line and trunkline trenches. Various mitigation
measures outlining how this will occur are detailed in the following section.
Should a Northern Quoll breeding place (i.e. their den) be identified and it is determined that disturbance
or tampering to the breeding site is unavoidable the management strategy will be to follow the procedures
outlined in the Species Management Plan - Tampering with Breeding Place of a Protected Animal Species
(QCLNG-BG00-ENV-RPT-000004).
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures to minimise Project impacts on Northern Quolls are:
 Following a desktop assessment, scouting surveys will be undertaken in order to identify if any suitable
habitat (including microhabitat) will be impacted by the proposed clearing activities. If there is potential
for suitable habitat to be adversely impacted, targeted surveys will be undertaken in order to confirm the
presence/absence of species. The EPBC Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened mammals (2011)
recommend the following survey methods. These survey methodologies will be implemented where
appropriate and practicable:
-
338
Cage trapping surveys for areas up to 5ha in size. Trapping is best conducted between May and
August;
QGC 2015
Revision 5
-
In remote locations where it is difficult to deploy large numbers of cage traps, Elliot trapping is a
suitable alternative. Trapping should be concentrated in rocky denning habitat, with some
consideration of non-rocky foraging and dispersal habitats;
-
Baiting of traps should be undertaken in accordance with the guideline, using preferably oats,
sardines and/or peanut butter; and
-
Other techniques that could be implemented in remote locations include daytime searches in
suitable habitat, use of sand traps, remote cameras, hair tubes and/or spotlight surveys.
 As part of routine pre-start meetings, work crews will be briefed on any known and potential
environmental constraints occurring in that work location, including any likely significant flora and fauna
species, populations and TEC they may encounter;
 Wherever practicable signage should be erected to increase the general awareness amongst work
crews of the presence of the species and particularly any den site/s in the area;
 Prior to clearing, limits of clearing areas including “no go” zones delineating identified Northern Quoll
habitat areas or den/s identified during pre-clearance surveys will be clearly marked out with
Representative;
 Pre-clearance survey to be undertaken by suitably qualified, experienced and licensed fauna catchers
prior to any clearing activities being undertaken. Northern Quolls are nocturnal and therefore unlikely to
be observed during the pre-clearance survey. Fauna catchers shall subject any likely habitat areas to
mild disturbance to encourage the natural relocation of any resident Northern Quolls;
 Clearing to be carried out in a sequential manner and in a way that directs escaping wildlife away from
clearing and into adjacent native vegetation or natural areas;
 If Northern Quolls are found prior to or during clearing activities, they shall be removed as appropriate
from the clearing area to a suitable location by a licensed fauna spotter catcher in possession of
appropriate permits for fauna relocation. Non breeding Quolls found occupying a den within the clearing
area shall be relocated into suitable available hollows or nesting areas within adjacent vegetation as
determined by the licensed fauna catcher;
 If prior to or during clearing activities an active breeding site and / or a den shelter (e.g. hollows, goanna
burrows and rocky outcrops) is identified within or adjacent to the clearing area, the location will be
clearly flagged and identified as a “no go” zone including a 100 m buffer around the den. Wherever
possible, all measures including the relocation of site infrastructure or the reduction of the clearing area
shall be taken to avoid disturbing the den;
 Actions in accordance with the Species Management Plan - Tampering with Breeding Place of a
Protected Animal Species (QCLNG-BG00-ENV-RPT-000004) will be followed, including that if
tampering of a breeding place is required work will cease until a licensed fauna catcher with the
appropriate fauna relocation permit is available to investigate the area and remove any Northern Quolls
to suitable available hollows or nesting areas within adjacent vegetation. After which time the ‘no go’
zone will be removed and clearing work may continue;
 In areas where Northern Quolls are identified and breeding sites (dense understorey/logs) are removed
as part of project activities, cleared materials will be stored and relocated or replaced after construction.
Key areas will be rehabilitated with shrubs and grasses as appropriate in order to restore habitat micro
features;
 Any injured fauna shall be transported to a veterinarian or recognised wildlife carer immediately for
treatment;
 To avoid and minimise injury to Northern Quolls in gathering line and trunkline trenches, in areas where
threatened fauna species susceptible to be caught in trenches are likely to occur, fauna spotter
catchers must inspect and remove any fauna from gathering line and trunkline trenches twice daily
(early morning and late afternoon) every day while the trenches are open and have access to the site in
all weather. In all other areas fauna spotter catchers shall inspect trenches at least once daily;
 Additional measures in relation to the trenches and preventing fauna entrapment are detailed in the Site
Based Environmental Management Plan (SBEMP). They include providing exit ramps for fauna and
339
QGC 2015
Revision 5
shelter such as hessian sacks soaked in water;
 Prior to backfilling of the trench site personnel will check the open trench for trapped fauna and where
required a fauna spotter catcher will be called to move any fauna to a safe location away from the
trench;
 All recorded sightings of Northern Quolls, the locations of any breeding sites and any relocations which
may be required will be reported to the relevant authority as part of the Project reporting;
 Dust suppression measures including road watering and reduced vehicle speeds will be implemented to
minimise dust deposition in habitat areas;
 In areas where mulching of cleared vegetation for distribution during rehabilitation may not be
undertaken, vegetation shall be stick raked into piles to provide fauna habitat;
 Where possible, when erecting any project related fencing the use of barb wire, particularly on the top
 Where the species has been identified in proximity to the Gas Field infrastructure, temporary lighting
 Vehicle activities should be restricted to roads, access tracks and hardened surfaces to reduce
 Fire management measures shall take into account the need to protect remnant vegetation from
frequent and hot fires. On site fire management practices shall be in accordance with Contractor HSSE
requirements, relevant construction permits and method statements and appropriate dedicated
firefighting equipment will be available at high risk construction sites to manage any fires that may start
up and to avoid wildfires breaking out; and
 Should non-compliance with the mitigation measures or management strategies outlined in this SSMP
Field RRRMP.
Control of pest animals, including feral cats will be undertaken across the Gas Field Project area in
accordance with the Weed and Pest Management Plan.
by a qualified ecologist to identify the presence / absence of the Northern Quoll or their dens.
Surveys for this species are carried out in accordance with the DoE Survey guidelines for Australia’s
threatened mammals (2011).
Avoidance of dens where possible.
Monitoring
An appropriate monitoring program, incorporating the monitoring of any offset site where applicable, will be
established in conjunction with the relevant authority once any impact to the Northern Quoll is identified.
In areas where the Northern Quoll is likely to be present, fauna spotter catchers must monitor gathering
line and trunkline trenches twice daily (early morning and late afternoon) every day while the trenches are
open and have access to the site in all weather. In all other areas fauna spotter catchers shall monitor
trenches at least once daily.
If weed pest or fire management regimes are found to be ineffective, responsive management strategies
340
QGC 2015
Revision 5
will be employed, such as increasing frequency of pest management activities.
References
Atlas of Living Australia (2015), Available from http://bie.ala.org.au/species/Dasyurus+hallucatus,
Accessed 13 January 2015.
Braithwaite, R. W. & R.J. Begg (1995). Northern quoll Dasyurus hallucatus Gould, 1842. In: Strahan, R.,
ed. The Mammals of Australia: National Photographic Index of Australian Wildlife. Page(s) 65-66. Sydney:
Reed Books.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) (2005).
Threatened
Species
Day
Fact
Sheet,
Quolls
of
Australia,
Accessed
online
at
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/pubs/tsday08-quoll.pdf.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) (2011).
Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened mammals, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Hill B.M. and Ward S.J. (2010). National Recovery Plan for the Northern Quoll Dasyurus hallucatus.
Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport, Darwin.
Oakwood, M. (2008).Northern quoll Dasyurus hallucatus. In: Van Dyck, S. and R. Strahan, eds. The
Mammals of Australia (3rd ed). Page(s) 57-59. Sydney, NSW: Reed New Holland.
341
QGC 2015
Revision 5
Ö TAROOM
Ö
150°E
151°E
Ö
Ö
CAIRNS
Ö
Ö
TOWNSVILLE
Ö
Ö
26°S
Q
Ö
Ö
MACKAY
26°S
CLERMONT
Ö
Ö
Bowen Basin
WANDOAN
Ö
Ö
LE
Ö
Ö
GLADSTONE
IC
H
H
AR
Cooper Basin
ROMA
Ö
Ö
DT
Surat Basin
CHINCHILLA
Ö
Ö
BRISBANE
HI
GH
WA
N
N ee w
w S
S oo uu tt hh W
W aa ll ee ss
Y
Ö
DULACCA
Ö
Ö
MILES
WA
RRE
GO
HIG
HW
AY
Ö
Ö
CHINCHILLA
JANDOWAE
Ö
Ö
RO M
A
CO ND AM
I NE ROA D
27°S
27°S
Ö
Ö
TARA
RDT
HHA
L EI C
W
HIG H
AY
Ö
Ö
MO
O
E
NI
HI
GH
AY
W
150°E
151°E
PLAN 53 - NORTHERN QUOLL Dasyurus hallucatus
±
0
10
20
40
DATA SOURCE:
Town/City
Principal Road
Kilometers
Ö
Ö
SCALE:
1:650,000 (A3)
Secondary Road
Dasyurus hallucatus
Indicative habitat
QCLNG Project
Tenements - DNRM
MAP NO:
LN-pagew01
M_39786_51
7.6.5
ONYCHOGALEA FRAENATA (BRIDLED NAILTAIL WALLABY)
Onychogalea fraenata (Bridled Nailtail Wallaby)
Onychogalea fraenata (Photo: Lundie-Jenkins and
Lowry 2005)
Distribution Map (DoE, 2015) Onychogalea
fraenata Distribution Map (DoE, 2015)
Endangered
Endangered
Back on Track Species
Known Distribution
The only known significant population (approx. 200 individuals) occurs in Taunton National Park
(Scientific), located near the town of Dingo (Davidson 1991; Lundie-Jenkins 2001). The species has
been re-introduced in a small section of Idalia National Park in Western Queensland (Pople et al.
2001), as well as in Avocet Nature Refuge near Emerald (Lundie-Jenkins & Lowry 2005). A
population has also been re-introduced approximately 150 km south of Broken Hill NSW, at Scotia
Sanctuary (Finlayson et al. 2008). The species is not known to occur within the Project area.
Occurrence in the Gas Field
None recorded to date within the Gas Field.
The Bridled Nailtail Wallaby weighs up to 8 kg (males) and up to 1 m tall. The species has a
distinctive marking of a white 'bridle' line running from the centre of the neck, along the shoulder to
behind the forearm on each side of the body. A black stripe runs the length of the body, and white
cheek stripes are present on both sides of the head (DSEWPaC 2013). On the tip of the tail the
species has a horny ‘nail’ between 3 and 6mm in length and is partly concealed by hair (Evans 1992
cited in Lundie-Jenkins 2001).
Known Distribution
343
QGC 2015
Revision 5
The only known significant population (approx. 200 individuals) occurs in Taunton National Park
(Scientific), located near the town of Dingo (Davidson 1991; Lundie-Jenkins 2001). The species has
been re-introduced in a small section of Idalia National Park in Western Queensland (Pople et al.
2001), as well as in Avocet Nature Refuge near Emerald (Lundie-Jenkins & Lowry 2005). A
population has also been re-introduced approximately 150 km south of Broken Hill NSW, at Scotia
Sanctuary (Finlayson et al. 2008). The species is not known to occur within the Project area.
The Bridled Nailtail Wallaby is mostly nocturnal. During the day adults rest and shelter in hollow logs
or under young Brigalow trees, with females leaving their young-at-foot in low, dense vegetation such
as grass tussocks. Bridled Nailtail Wallabies are able to breed at any time, and can potentially have
three young a year. The gestation period is around 24 days and young stay in the pouch for around
120 days. They mature at a young age (females at 136 days and males at 270 days); however, it
may take up to 18 months before a male is large and strong enough to successfully mate (LundieJenkins 2001).
The Bridled Nailtail Wallaby lives in semi-arid areas where dense acacia shrubland and grassy
woodland meet (Tierney 1985).
The species' core nocturnal feeding range centred on the ecotone between pasture and young
Brigalow regrowth. When feeding in the open pasture, wallabies remain close to the edge of shelter
habitat (Evans 1996).
General Threats
Threats faced by the Bridled Nailtail Wallaby include:

Predation by foxes and feral cats, and some predation from wild dogs;

Habitat loss, modification and degradation mainly through land clearing, drought, fire, and Buffel
Grass; and

Competition with introduced stock (mainly sheep) and rabbits.
Development Threats

Animals may be trapped if they fall into the gathering line and trunkline trenches during
construction;

Temporary loss of habitat during construction;

The removal of vegetative cover may expose young animals to elevated predation; and

Altered fire regimes.
Operational Threats

Altered fire regimes; and

The removal of vegetative cover may expose young animals to elevated predation.
 Altered fire regimes.
As the Bridled Nailtail Wallaby has not been identified as occurring within the Gas Field, the primary
management strategy is to focus on the identification, avoidance and protection of individuals,
populations, habitat and breeding areas and to avoid injury or death in gathering line and trunkline
trenches. Various mitigation measures outlining how this will occur are detailed in the following
344
QGC 2015
Revision 5
section.
Offset sites will potentially be established for unavoidable impacts to EPBC listed fauna species
habitat.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures to minimise Project impacts on Bridled Nailtail Wallaby are:

Following a desktop assessment, scouting surveys will be undertaken in order to identify if any
suitable habitat (including microhabitat) will be impacted by the proposed clearing activities. If
there is potential for suitable habitat to be adversely impacted, targeted surveys will be
undertaken in order to confirm the presence/absence of species;

The EPBC Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened mammals (DSEWPaC 2011) recommend
the following survey methods (for areas up to 5 ha). These survey methodologies will be
implemented where appropriate and practicable:
-
Daytime searches for potentially suitable habitat resources, such as areas of open eucalypt
forest, woodland and Brigalow scrub;
-
Daytime searches for signs of activity, including tracks, scats and scrapes;
-
Diurnal surveys for wallabies resting;
-
Baited camera traps may be of use in confirming the presence and identity of wallabies; and
-
Spotlight surveys conducted either on foot or from a vehicle.

Pre-clearance survey to be undertaken by suitably qualified, experienced and licensed fauna
catchers prior to any clearing activities being undertaken. Bridled Nailtail Wallaby is nocturnal
and therefore unlikely to be observed during the pre-clearance survey. Fauna catchers shall
subject any likely habitat areas to mild disturbance to encourage the natural relocation of any
resident Bridled Nailtail Wallaby;


Wherever practicable signage should be erected to increase the general awareness amongst
work crews of the presence of the species;

Prior to clearing, limits of clearing areas including “no go” zones delineating identified Bridled
Nailtail Wallaby habitat identified during pre-clearance surveys will be clearly marked out with
Representative;

Clearing to be carried out in a sequential manner and in a way that directs escaping wildlife away
from clearing and into adjacent native vegetation or natural areas;

If Bridled Nailtail Wallabies are found prior to or during clearing activities, they shall be removed
as appropriate from the clearing area to a suitable location by a licensed fauna spotter catcher in
possession of appropriate permits for fauna relocation;

Any injured fauna shall be transported to a veterinarian or recognised wildlife carer immediately
for treatment;

To avoid and minimise injury to Bridled Nailtail Wallaby in gathering line and trunkline trenches,
in areas where threatened fauna species susceptible to be caught in trenches are likely to occur,
fauna spotter catchers must inspect and remove any fauna from gathering line and trunkline
trenches twice daily (early morning and late afternoon) every day while the trenches are open
and have access to the site in all weather. In all other areas fauna spotter catchers shall inspect
345
QGC 2015
Revision 5
trenches at least once daily;

Additional measures in relation to the trenches and preventing fauna entrapment are detailed in
the Site Based Environmental Management Plan (SBEMP). They include providing exit ramps for
fauna and shelter such as hessian sacks soaked in water;

Prior to backfilling of the trench site personnel will check the open trench for trapped fauna and
where required a fauna spotter catcher will be called to move any fauna to a safe location away
from the trench;

All recorded sightings of Bridled Nailtail Wallaby will be reported to the relevant authority as part
of the Project reporting;

Dust suppression measures including road watering and reduced vehicle speeds will be
implemented to minimise dust deposition in habitat areas;

In areas where mulching of cleared vegetation for distribution during rehabilitation may not be
undertaken, vegetation shall be stick raked into piles to provide fauna habitat;

Where possible, when erecting any project related fencing the use of barb wire, particularly on
the top strand, is to be avoided to avoid birds and other fauna getting caught;

Where barbed wire fencing is absolutely necessary, QGC will consider the implementation of the
following design:
-
-
plastic bunting (or warning tags) should be attached to the top strand of barbed wire

Where the species has been identified in proximity to the Gas Field infrastructure, temporary
lighting shall be directed away from light-sensitive areas such as nesting areas and light shades
and low lighting must be applied to construction and operational areas where these are located
adjacent to remnant vegetation and other environmentally sensitive areas;


HSSE requirements, relevant construction permits and method statements and appropriate
dedicated firefighting equipment will be available at high risk construction sites to manage any
fires that may start up and to avoid wildfires breaking out; and

SSMP occur on site an investigation shall be undertaken by all responsible parties followed by
corrective action procedures if required. Work in the area will cease at the time of the noncompliance if the incident is deemed significant by the site Environment Representative.
Rehabilitation will be progressively undertaken during construction following backfilling and
completion of infrastructure establishment. Natural regeneration of disturbed areas will be
encouraged after construction activities and also at the conclusion of the Project. Further detail on
rehabilitation is provided in the Gas Field RRRMP.
party) by a qualified ecologist to identify the presence / absence of the Bridled Nailtail Wallaby.
Monitoring
An appropriate monitoring program, incorporating the monitoring of any offset site where applicable,
will be established in conjunction with the relevant authority once an impact to the Bridled Nailtail
Wallaby is identified and quantified.
346
QGC 2015
Revision 5
In areas where the Bridled Nailtail Wallaby is likely to be present, fauna spotter catchers must
monitor gathering line and trunkline trenches twice daily (early morning and late afternoon) every day
while the trenches are open and have access to the site in all weather. In all other areas fauna
spotter catchers shall monitor trenches at least once daily.
References
Davidson, C. (1991). Recovery plan for the bridled nailtail wallaby (Onychogalea frenata). ANPWS
Endangered Species Program. Unpublished report to ANPWS.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) (2011),
Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened mammals, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Department of the Environment (DoE) (2015). Onychogalea fraenata in Species Profile and Threats
Database, DoE, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed 13
January 2015.
Evans, M. (1996). Home ranges and movement schedules of sympatric bridled nailtail and blackstriped wallabies. Wildlife Research 23: 547-556.
Finlayson, G.R., E.M. Vieira, D. Priddel, R. Wheeler, J. Bentley & C.R. Dickman (2008). Multi-scale
patterns of habitat use by re-introduced mammals: A case study using medium-sized marsupials.
Biological Conservation. 141 (1):320-331.
Lundie-Jenkins, G. (2001). Recovery plan for the bridled nailtail wallaby (Onychogalea fraenata)
1997-2001. [Online]. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service. Available from:
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/b-nailtailedwallaby/index.html.
Lundie-Jenkins, G. & J. Lowry (2005). Recovery plan for the bridled nailtail wallaby (Onychogalea
fraenata), 2005-2009. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service.
Pople, A.R., J. Lowry, G. Lundie-Jenkins, T.F. Clancy, H.I. McCallum, D.P. Sigg, D. Hoolihan & S.
Hamilton (2001). Demography of bridled nailtail wallabies translocated to the edge of their former
range from captive and wild stock. Biological Conservation. 102:285-299.
Tierney, P.J. (1985). Habitat and ecology of the bridled nailtail wallaby with implications for
management. M.Sc. Thesis. Queensland Institute of Technology.
347
QGC 2015
Revision 5
7.6.6
PHASCOLARCTOS CINEREUS (KOALA)
Phascolarctos cinereus (Koala)
Phascolarctos cinereus (Photo: Gerry Pearce)
Phascolarctos cinereus Distribution Map (DoE, 2015)
Vulnerable (Listed April 2012)
Areas other than South East Queensland Bioregion – Special Least Concern Animal
South East Queensland Bioregion – Vulnerable (Listed March 2004)
Known Distribution
Koalas occur throughout Eastern Australia in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia.
In Queensland the highest concentrations are in South East Queensland, particularly within the local
government areas of Sunshine Coast, Moreton Bay, Brisbane, Ipswich, Logan, Redland and Gold Coast.
Lower densities occur throughout the rest of the state.
The Koala is known to occur throughout the Brigalow Belt Bioregion (North and South). Koala densities
within the QCLNG Project area are considered typically low relative to coastal populations and generally
range from 0.01 – 0.1 Koalas/ha (Melzer 2000 and Ellis 2002). Given that relatively few signs of Koala
presence within the QCLNG project area have been observed, it is likely that Koala density is at the lower
end of this range. The species is likely to be scattered throughout the QCLNG Project area and may occur
in a range of vegetation communities typically associated with the presence of surface water, riparian and
wetland ecosystems (Gordon 1988; Munks 1996; Sullivan 2003; Wu 2012). In particular, Koalas are more
likely to inhabit fringing riparian regional ecosystems associated with watercourses and adjoining
vegetation communities dominated by Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum), Eucalyptus tereticornis
(Forest Red Gum), Eucalyptus coolabah (Coolabah), Eucalyptus populnea (Poplar box), Eucalyptus
thozetiana (Napunyah) and Eucalyptus melanophloia (Silver-leaved Ironbark) (Sullivan 2003; Wu 2012).
Eucalyptus tereticornis
The dietary preferences of the Koala can be considered to be quite broad ranging from Eucalyptus,
Corymbia, Angophora and Lophostemon species however soil nutrients, water availability, temperature
and elevation ultimately limit the specific dietary preferences of local populations to one or a few species
(Moore & Foley 2000; Martin & Handasyde 1999; Sullivan 2003). Further, Sullivan (2004) and Wu (2012)
suggests that E. camaldulensis, E. coolabah, E. populnea, E. thozetiana and E. melanophloia are the most
important tree species within central and western districts of Queensland while E. tereticornis is considered
an important tree fodder species within inland and coastal transition zones. On this basis, Koalas will be
most likely associated with the following Regional Ecosystems (vegetation communities) within the QCLNG
348
QGC 2015
Revision 5
Gas Fields: RE 11.3.1, 11.3.2, 11.3.3, 11.3.4, 11.3.14, 11.3.17, 11.3.18, 11.3.19, 11.3.21, 11.3.25,
11.3.26, 11.3.27a, 11.3.27b, 11.3.27d, 11.3.27i, 11.3.39, 11.4.3, 11.4.3a, 11.4.3b, 11.4.7, 11.4.10, 11.4.12,
11.5.1, 11.5.1a,11.5.5, 11.5.13, 11.7.1, 11.7.2, 11.8.2a, 11.8.4, 11.8.5, 11.8.11 , 11.9.1, 11.9.2, 11.9.5a,
11.9.6, 11.9.7, 11.9.10, 11.9.14, 11.10.7, 11.10.9, 11.10.11, 11.11.4, 11.11.9, 11.11.10,11.11.10a,
11.11.15, 11.12.1, 11.12.2, 11.12.3, 11.12.6, and 11.12.17.
Habitat for this species has been mapped using RE associations cognisant of vegetation community
composition and structure at a broad vegetation group level (Table 1).
Table 1 – Regional Ecosystems known to support Phascolarctos cinereus
11.3.1
Open forest dominated by Acacia harpophylla (Brigalow) and/or Casuarina cristata (Belah)
(particularly in southern parts), with or without scattered emergent Eucalyptus spp. such as E.
coolabah, E. largiflorens, E. populnea, E. orgadophila, and E. woollsiana.
11.3.2
Eucalyptus populnea (Poplar Box) woodland on alluvial plains.
11.3.3
Eucalyptus coolabah (Coolabah) woodland on alluvial plains
11.3.4
Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest Red Gum) and/or Eucalyptus spp. tall woodland on alluvial plains.
11.3.14
Eucalyptus spp., Angophora spp., Callitris spp. woodland on alluvial plains. Sandy soils.
11.3.17
Eucalyptus populnea (Poplar Box) woodland with Acacia harpophylla (Brigalow) and/or Casuarina
cristata (Belah) on alluvial plains.
11.3.18
Eucalyptus populnea, Callitris glaucophylla (Cypress), Allocasuarina luehmannii (Bull-oak) shrubby
woodland on alluvium.
11.3.19
Callitris glaucophylla, Corymbia spp. and/or Eucalyptus melanophloia (Silver-leaved ironbark) open
forest to woodland on Cainozoic alluvial plains
11.3.21
Dichanthium sericeum and/or Astrebla spp. grassland on alluvial plains. Cracking clay soils.
Scattered trees and shrubs may occur including Eucalyptus coolabah, E. populnea, E. tereticornis
or Acacia spp.
11.3.25
Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest Red Gum) or E. camaldulensis (River Red Gum) woodland fringing
drainage lines.
11.3.26
Eucalyptus moluccana or E. woollsiana +/- E. populnea +/- E. melanophloia tall open forest to
woodland +/- Allocasuarina luehmannii low tree layer and a grassy ground layer.
11.3.27a
A narrow fringing woodland commonly dominated by E. camaldulensis or E. coolabah but also a
range of other tree species may be present.
11.3.27b
Fringing woodland, commonly Eucalyptus camaldulensis or E. coolabah but also a wide range of
other species including Eucalyptus platyphylla, E. tereticornis, Melaleuca spp., Acacia holosericea
or other Acacia spp. Occurs on billabongs.
11.3.27d
Palustrine wetland (e.g. vegetated swamp). Eucalyptus camaldulensis and/or E. tereticornis
woodland.
11.3.27i
Palustrine wetland (e.g. vegetated swamp). Eucalyptus camaldulensis or E. tereticornis woodland
to open woodland with sedge land ground layer.
11.3.39
Eucalyptus melanophloia ± E. chloroclada open woodland on undulating plains and valleys with
sandy soils
11.4.3
Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristata shrubby open forest on Cainozoic clay plains.
Eucalyptus spp. such as E. orgadophila, E. populnea, E. microcarpa, Eucalyptus woollsiana, E.
cambageana and E. thozetiana (on shallower soils and upper slopes) may be scattered through the
canopy or occur as emergents up to 22m high.
11.4.3a
Palustrine wetland (e.g. vegetated swamp). Melaleuca bracteata woodland associated with Acacia
harpophylla communities. May include scattered occurrences of other tree species such as
Eucalyptus tereticornis, E. populnea, Acacia harpophylla and Casuarina cristata. In some instances
E. tereticornis dominates with other species restricting to a narrow fringe.
11.4.3b
Eucalyptus argophloia, Acacia harpophylla open forest. Associated trees may include Casuarina
349
QGC 2015
Revision 5
cristata, Eucalyptus populnea or Eucalyptus microcarpa, with a shrub layer of Geijera parviflora.
11.4.7
Eucalyptus populnea with Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristata open forest to woodland on
Cainozoic clay plains
11.4.10
Eucalyptus populnea (Poplar Box) or E. pilligaensis (Gum-topped Box), Acacia harpophylla
(Brigalow), Casuarina cristata (Belah) open forest to woodland on margins of Cainozoic clay plains.
11.4.12
Eucalyptus populnea (Poplar Box) woodland on Cainozoic clay plains.
11.5.1
Eucalyptus crebra and/or E. populnea, Callitris glaucophylla, Angophora leiocarpa, Allocasuarina
luehmannii woodland on Cainozoic sand plains and/or remnant surfaces.
11.5.1a
Eucalyptus populnea woodland with Allocasuarina luehmannii low tree layer.
11.5.5
Eucalyptus melanophloia, Callitris glaucophylla woodland on Cainozoic sand plains/remnant
surfaces. Deep red sands.
11.5.13
Eucalyptus populnea (Poplar Box) +/- Acacia aneura (Mulga) +/- E. melanophloia (Silver-leaf
Ironbark) woodland on Cainozoic sand plains/remnant surfaces.
11.7.1
Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristata and Eucalyptus thozetiana or E. microcarpa woodland
on lower scarp slopes on Cainozoic lateritic duricrust
11.7.2
Acacia spp. woodland on Cainozoic lateritic duricrust. Scarp retreat zone. Emergent eucalypt
species such as Eucalyptus thozetiana, E. crebra, E. decorticans and E. exserta may be present.
11.8.2a
Eucalyptus tereticornis and E. melliodora occurring on low hills.
11.8.4
Eucalyptus melanophloia open woodland on Cainozoic igneous rocks.
11.8.5
Eucalyptus orgadophila grassy open woodland. Eucalyptus orgadophila predominates and forms a
distinct but discontinuous canopy sometimes with other sub-dominant species such as Corymbia
erythrophloia, E. melanophloia and occasionally E. crebra.
11.8.11
Grassland dominated by Dichanthium sericeum, Aristida spp., Astrebla spp. and Panicum
decompositum with or without trees such as Eucalyptus orgadophila, E. melanophloia, Corymbia
erythrophloia and Acacia salicina, (height 11+/-3 m).
11.9.1
Acacia harpophylla (Brigalow) / Eucalyptus cambageana (Dawson Gum) open forest to woodland
on fine-grained sedimentary rocks.
11.9.2
Eucalyptus melanophloia +/- E. orgadophila woodland on fine-grained sedimentary rocks.
11.9.5a
Acacia harpophylla predominates and forms a fairly continuous canopy (10-18m high). Other tree
species such as Eucalyptus populnea, Casuarina cristata, Cadellia pentastylis and Brachychiton
spp. may also be present in some areas and form part of the canopy or emerge above it.
11.9.6
Open forest dominated by Acacia melvillei with or without Acacia harpophylla, and with or without
Eucalyptus populnea.
11.9.7
Eucalyptus populnea, Eremophila mitchellii shrubby woodland on fine-grained sedimentary rocks
11.9.10
Eucalyptus populnea open forest with a secondary tree layer of Acacia harpophylla and sometimes
Casuarina cristata on fine-grained sedimentary rocks
11.9.14
Lysiphyllum carronii, Atalaya hemiglauca ± Eucalyptus melanophloia ± Acacia excelsa open
woodland.
11.10.7
Eucalyptus crebra and/or E. melanophloia +/- E. populnea shrubby woodland on coarse-grained
sedimentary rocks. Eucalyptus melanophloia and/or E. crebra predominate and form a distinct but
open canopy.
11.10.9
Callitris glaucophylla woodland on coarse-grained sedimentary rocks. E. populnea is commonly
present and may be locally dominant particularly on lower slopes.
11.10.11
Eucalyptus populnea, E. melanophloia ± Callitris glaucophylla woodland on coarse-grained
sedimentary rocks
11.11.4
Eucalyptus crebra woodland +/- Corymbia citriodora +/- E. tereticornis +/- C. tessellaris +/Lophostemon suaveolens with Xanthorrhoea spp. and Macrozamia spp. often present in shrub
layer.
11.11.9
Eucalyptus populnea or E. brownii woodland on deformed and metamorphosed sediments and
interbedded volcanics
350
QGC 2015
Revision 5
11.11.10
Eucalyptus melanophloia woodland on deformed and metamorphosed sediments and interbedded
volcanics
11.11.10a
Eucalyptus moluccana woodland. Eucalyptus moluccana, E. tereticornis may be prominent
components of the tree layer, particularly on lower slopes.
11.11.15
Eucalyptus crebra +/- Corymbia erythrophloia +/- E. populnea +/- E. melanophloia +/- C. tessellaris
+/- C. clarksoniana woodland to open woodland often with a shrubby layer.
11.12.1
Eucalyptus crebra +/- Corymbia erythrophloia shrubby woodland. E. melanophloia is often present
and may be locally dominant.
11.12.2
Eucalyptus melanophloia woodland on igneous rocks
11.12.3
Eucalyptus crebra, E. tereticornis, Angophora leiocarpa woodland on igneous rocks especially
granite
11.12.6
Corymbia citriodora, Eucalyptus crebra, E. microcarpa/E. moluccana, Angophora leiocarpa and E.
melanophloia open forest to woodland. Other tree species that may be present include E.
tereticornis +/- C. tessellaris +/- C. clarksoniana and E. fibrosa.
11.12.17
Eucalyptus populnea woodland on igneous rocks. Colluvial lower slopes
The Koala is of medium size with predominately grey coloured fur. It has large round ears, a stocky body, a
very small tail and sharp claws. The species displays sexual dimorphism (males are generally larger than
females). It is a marsupial with a backward facing pouch. While there is only one species of Koala, their
appearance differs throughout their range and these adaptations are thought to be linked to regional
characteristics, such as temperature. Generally, populations in the northern parts of the range are smaller
and have lighter coloured fur than populations further south (DoE 2014, DOE 2015).
On average, Queensland Koalas weigh between 5 and 10 Kilograms, with males being larger than
females. They have a lifespan of about 15 years in the wild. Koalas are solitary animals with their own
home range, which is usually arranged in an overlapping matrix with those of other Koalas. The size of a
home range may differ greatly depending on the quality of habitat, food sources available and the gender
of the Koala (males generally have larger home ranges) (DoE 2014, DOE 2015).
Typically home ranges for the koala within central Queensland tend to be relatively large, up to 135ha (Ellis
2002).
Females breed from two years of age and give birth once per year, usually in January or December
(although it may be earlier or later). Young emerge from the pouch at six months of age and are weaned at
about twelve months.
Chlamydial infections of the reproductive tract may cause infertility in female Koalas, affecting the
reproductive potential of a population and stunting population growth. It is thought that the occurrence of
these infections may increase due to environmental stresses (DEHP, 2008).
Weaned Koalas often have a home range overlapping with their mothers until approximately two to four
years of age at which point they disperse. This puts them at greater risk of vehicle strikes and dog attacks
(DEHP, 2006).
Koalas live in ecosystems where the vegetation is dominated by eucalypt species, including a range of
temperate, sub-tropical and tropical forests, woodlands and semi-arid communities. While the dietary
preferences of the koala can be considered to be quite broad ranging from Eucalyptus, Corymbia,
Angophora and Lophostemon species, soil nutrients, water availability, temperature and elevation
ultimately limit the specific dietary preferences of local populations to one or a few species (Moore & Foley
2000; Martin & Handasyde 1999; Sullivan 2003). Wu (2012) concluded that within southwest Queensland,
tree species composition in koala diet was strongly correlated with species foliar moisture content. Over all,
studies found that leaf moisture was significantly higher with the presence of surface water, supported by
Munks (1996) and Gordon (1988). Studies also suggest that water availability, rather than soil type was the
primary factor identifying optimum koala habitat in arid and semi-arid woodlands (Munks 1996; Wu 2012).
351
QGC 2015
Revision 5
Furthermore, there is a strong correlation between water availability and eucalypt species and land form
elements such as critically important riparian areas and adjacent woodlands (Wu 2012; Sullivan 2003). As
such, the role of eucalypt dominated riparian and adjacent woodland areas in supporting koala populations
in the western and central areas of Queensland is key to identifying habitat critical to the survival of the
Koala (Wu 2012; Sullivan 2003).
Within the Brigalow Belt Bioregion, Koalas are more likely to inhabit fringing riparian regional ecosystems
associated with watercourses and adjoining woodlands and low ranges particularly dominated by E.
camaldulensis, E. coolabah, E. populnea, E. thozetiana, E. melanophloia, and E. tereticornis (Wu 2012;
Sullivan 2003).
General Threats
The main threats to the Koala within the QCLNG Project area are the loss of habitat and fragmentation due
to land development and death or injury from vehicle strike (DoE2015). Mortality due to dog attacks and
disease remains a significant threat for koala populations nationally however these threats generally affect
more densely populated coastal areas such as south-east Queensland and northern New South Wales
(DoE 2015).
Other threats include:
 Direct fatality due to clearing activities and proximity to heavy machinery;
 Degradation of habitat from disturbance of feed trees;
 Reduced water availability;
 Dust (from traffic movement or project activities) has the potential to affect this species during
construction periods and long periods without rain. This can lead to habitat degradation and respiratory
issues;
 Altered fire regimes;
 Loss and fragmentation of habitat;
 Death or injury from vehicle strikes;
 Disease;
 Predation by dogs; and,
 Drought, extreme heat and fires
Development Threats
 Loss and fragmentation of habitat from clearing activities;
 Habitat degradation resulting from clearing activities;
 Increased vehicles strikes due to increased road traffic; and
 Direct fatality due to clearing activities and proximity to heavy machinery.
Operational Threats
 Vehicle strikes due to continued road use for project activities;
 Degradation of habitat by weed invasion from disturbed areas; and
 Vehicle strikes due to continued road use for project activities;
 Degradation of habitat by weed invasion from disturbed areas; and
The primary management strategy is to focus on the identification and avoidance of individuals and habitat
and to avoid injury or death from vehicle strike and gathering and trunkline trenches.
Should the Koala or its habitat be identified, and impacts confirmed, the management strategies outlined in
Section 4.1 of the SSMP will be applied.
Mitigation Measures
352
QGC 2015
Revision 5
Mitigation measures to minimise Project impacts on Koalas are:







353
Following a desktop assessment, environmental surveys will be undertaken in order to identify if
suitable Koala habitat will be impacted by the proposed clearing activities. If there is a potential for
suitable habitat to be adversely impacted, targeted surveys will be undertaken in order to confirm the
presence/absence of the species and to assess the extent and condition of suitable habitat, including
food trees.
The Department of the Environment (DoE 2014) provides guidance for gathering information
concerning Koala habitat and occurrence including appropriate survey techniques and assessments in
order to gather adequate information regarding:
o Koala presence (potentially abundance or density);
o Vegetation composition;
o Habitat connectivity;
o Existing threats to koalas; and
o Recovery value.
The DoE (2014) guideline does not prescribe survey effort standards for the Koala due to the high
level of variation in environmental attributes across the Koala’s range, however, the following key
principles should be considered:
o Sampling is only considered appropriate for moderate or large study areas (several
hectares or more); census (surveying the entire site) is relevant for small sites;
o Direct (observation) or indirect surveys (signs: scats, scratches) must be undertaken to
maximise the chance of detecting the species;
o Spatial and temporal replication of survey effort is important so as not to misinterpret
presence / absence data;
o Methodologies must be developed to suit the environmental characteristics and known
values of the site and the strengths and limitations of the applied methodologies should be
acknowledged;
o Do not extrapolate ecological findings derived from one community / bioregion to different
communities or bioregions; and
o Statistical and methodological rigor must be applied when drawing assumptions based on
sampling results.
Direct survey methods include (DoE 2014):
o Strip transects;
o Nocturnal spotlighting;
o Call playback;
o Remote sensor activated cameras;
o Mark-resight / mark-recapture;
o Radio or satellite collars.
Indirect survey methods include (DoE 2014):
o Detection of scratchings;
o Spot Assessment Technique (SAT);
o Regularised Grid Based Spot Assessment Technique (RGB-SAT);
o Koala optimised Rapid Assessment Methodology (KRAM);
o Faecal standing crop assessment.
If Koalas are known to be present in the area, consideration must be given in the pegging of
infrastructure, which includes:
o
Actual and potential clearing of Koala habitat must be avoided wherever possible;
o
If unavoidable, areas of lower habitat value or pre-existing disturbance must be preferentially
chosen for infrastructure;
o
Areas with higher incidences of preferred food trees must be avoided; and
o
Fragmentation of habitat by linear infrastructure, such as roads, tracks and pipes, must be
avoided by altering alignments to divert around Koala habitat, wherever possible and
practicable.
Pre-clearance survey to be undertaken by suitably qualified, experienced and licensed fauna catchers
QGC 2015
Revision 5
prior to any clearing activities being undertaken. Fauna spotter must also be present during vegetation
clearing activity at all time.






Prior to clearing, limits of clearing delineating actual Koala habitat identified during pre-clearance
surveys will be clearly marked out with appropriate flagging material and/or barricade webbing as
determined by the site Environment Representative.
Clearing is to be carried out in a sequential manner and in a way that directs escaping wildlife away
from clearing and into adjacent native vegetation or natural areas of their own volition. Sequential
clearing coupled with the slow nature of the clearing activities will take into account any variation in
landscape features such as rocky escarpments, riparian habitats and steep sloping areas and provide
fauna with sufficient time to exit the disturbance area. Decisions will then be made jointly between the
spotter catchers and construction contractor as to the most appropriate clearing method based on
each situation and the surrounding landscape/geological features;
All clearing activities will be carried out in a manner that will avoid the isolation of habitat, habitat
features or any noted fauna persisting within the construction areas.
If a Koala is found prior to or during clearing activities, it must not be forcibly relocated. Any tree that
has a Koala present, as well as any tree with its crown overlapping that tree, must not be removed
and remain in place until the Koala vacates the tree of its own accord.
Allow a buffer zone distance equal to the height of the tree or surrounding trees (whichever is tallest)
or a buffer zone deemed appropriate by the spotter catcher.
Clearly mark out this area to ensure contractors and personnel do not clear the trees until vacation by
the Koala is confirmed.

fauna species, populations and TEC they may encounter.

Wherever practicable, signage should be erected to increase the general awareness amongst work
crews of the presence of the species.

Any injured fauna shall be transported to a veterinarian or recognised wildlife carer immediately for
treatment.

To avoid and minimise injury to Koalas in gathering line and trunkline trenches, in areas where Koalas
may be susceptible to being caught in trenches, fauna spotter catchers must inspect and remove any
fauna from gathering line and trunkline trenches twice daily (early morning and late afternoon) every
day while the trenches are open and have access to the site in all weather. In all other areas fauna
spotter catchers shall inspect trenches at least once daily.

Prior to backfilling of the trench site personnel will check the open trench for trapped fauna and where
required a fauna spotter catcher will be called to move any fauna to a safe location away from the
trench.

All recorded sightings of Koalas will be reported as part of the Project reporting.


In areas where mulching of cleared vegetation for distribution during rehabilitation may not be
undertaken; vegetation shall be stick raked into piles to provide fauna habitat;

Vehicle activities should, where practicable, be restricted to roads, access tracks and hardened
surfaces to reduce potential impacts to threatened species;

Fire management measures shall take into account the need to manage remnant vegetation from
frequent and hot fires. On site fire management practices shall be in accordance with Contractor;

Relevant construction permits and method statements and appropriate dedicated firefighting
equipment will be available at high risk construction sites to manage any fires that may start up and to
avoid wildfires breaking out; and
354
QGC 2015
Revision 5

occur on site, an investigation shall be undertaken by all responsible parties followed by corrective
activities and also at the conclusion of the project.
by a qualified ecologist to identify any potential or actual impacts on Koala populations and/or their habitat.
Presence / absence surveys for this species should be carried out in accordance with the DoE Survey
guidelines.
Monitoring

In areas where the Koala is likely to be present, fauna spotter catchers must monitor gathering line
and trunkline trenches twice daily (early morning and late afternoon) every day while the trenches are
open and have access to the site in all weather. In all other areas fauna spotter catchers shall monitor
trenches at least once daily.
 Activities within the ‘No-Go’ Zone(s) limited to ecological survey/mitigation work. All other activities
require approval from the QGC Management Team.
 Effectiveness of ‘No-Go’ Zone management to be recorded during the weekly inspections and
reported in the weekly site environmental inspection checklist.
 If works are to occur within close proximity to a known sighting, work must be undertaken in
accordance with the SSMP especially the following information:
o Any incidents involving the Koala will be reported to DEHP within 24 hours followed by a
written incident report within 10 business days of initial notification;
o The person in charge (e.g. Field Environmental Officer) will be notified immediately of the
occurrence of an incident involving the Koala; and,
o All incident, non-compliances of approval conditions, species record, checklist, and any
reports must be recorded as per described in the in this SSMP and according to approval
requirements. The report must include actions taken to bring the matter into compliance.
References
Department of the Environment (DoE) (2015) Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) in Species Profile and Threats
Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Accessed 8 February 2015, available from:
http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat.
Department of Environment (DoE) (2014) EPBC Act Referral Guidelines for the Vulnerable Koala.
Department of Environment (DoE) (2013) Matters of National Environmental Significance. Significant Impact
Guidelines 1.1 EPBC Act 1999.
Department of the Environment and Heritage Protection (2006), Nature Conservation (Koala) Conservation
Plan 2006 and Management Program 2006-2016. Available at <www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/Koalas/
legislation/pdf/conservation-plan-06-16.pdf> (Accessed 21 September 2012).
Department of the Environment and Heritage Protection (2008), Conservation management Profile Koala
Phascolarctos cinereus. Available at < www.ehp.qld.gov.au/register/p02352aa.pdf> (Accessed 11 December
2012).
Ellis, W.A.H., A. Melzer, F.N. Carrick & M. Hasegawa (2002). Tree use, diet and home range of the koala
(Phascolarctos cinereus) at Blair Athol, central Queensland. Wildlife Research. 29:303-311.
355
QGC 2015
Revision 5
Gordon, G., Brown, A. S. and Pulsford, T. (1988). A koala (Phascolarctos cinereus Goldfuss) population
crash during drought and heatwave conditions in south-western Queensland. Australian Journal of Ecology
13: 451-461.
Martin, R. & K. Handasyde (1999). The Koala: Natural history, conservation and management. Sydney,
NSW: UNSW Press.
Melzer, A., F. Carrick, P. Menkhorst, D. Lunney & B.S. John (2000). Overview, critical assessment, and
conservation implications of koala distribution and abundance. Conservation Biology. 14:619-628.
Moore, B.D. & W.J. Foley (2000). A review of feeding and diet selection in koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus).
Australian Journal of Zoology. 48:317-333.
Munks, S.A., Corkrey, R. and Foley, W.J. (1996). Characteristics of arboreal marsupial habitat in the semiarid woodlands of northern Queensland. Wildlife Research 23: 185-195.
RPS Australia East (RPS) (2014) Ecological Assessment: Braemar State Forest ATP 1188.
Sattler, P., Williams, R. (1999). The conservation status of Queensland’s bioregional ecosystems.
Environmental Protection Agency, Queensland Government. ISBN: 0734510209
Sullivan, B. J., Norris, W. M. and Baxter, G. S. (2003). Low density koala (Phascolarctos cinereus)
populations in the mulgalands of south-west Queensland. II. Distribution and diet. Wildlife Research 30: 331338
The dietary preferences of koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) in southwest Queensland. Australian Zoologist
36: 93-102
356
QGC 2015
Revision 5
Ö TAROOM
Ö
150°E
151°E
Ö
Ö
CAIRNS
Ö
Ö
TOWNSVILLE
Ö
Ö
26°S
Q
IC
Bowen Basin
Ö
Ö
H
H
Cooper Basin
26°S
CLERMONT
WANDOAN
LE
Ö
Ö
Ö
Ö
MACKAY
Ö
Ö
ROMA
Ö
Ö
GLADSTONE
CHINCHILLA
AR
Ö
Ö
DT
Surat Basin
BRISBANE
HI
GH
N
N ee w
w S
S oo uu tt hh W
W aa ll ee ss
WA
Y
W A R REGO HIGHW A Y Ö
Ö
DULACCA
Ö
Ö
MILES
WA
RR E
GO
H IG
HW
AY
Ö
Ö
CHINCHILLA
JANDOWAE
Ö
Ö
RO M
A
COND AM
I N E R OA D
27°S
27°S
!
?
!
?
Ö
Ö
!
?
!
?
TARA
HHA
L EI C
RDT
W
HIG H
Ö
Ö
AY
MO
ON
IE
GH
HI
W
AY
150°E
151°E
PLAN 55 - KOALA Phascolarctos cinereus
±
0
10
DATA SOURCE:
20
Kilometers
40
SCALE:
Tenements - DNRM
1:650,000 (A3)
Ö
Ö
Town/City
Principal Road
Secondary Road
!
?
Phascolarctos cinereus
Survey Records (QGC)
Phascolarctos cinereus
Indicative habitat
QCLNG Project Area
MAP NO:
LN-pagew01
M_39786_52
APPENDIX 1.
DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
In this document, the following definitions apply:
Term
Meaning
Critically Endangered
Designated as ‘Critically Endangered’ under the EPBC Act. Refer to definition of
‘EPBC Act conservation status’ for meaning of Critically Endangered under the
Act
Ecological Community
An assemblage of species occupying a particular area
Endangered
Designated as ‘Endangered’ under the EPBC Act, NC Act and / or VM Act. Refer
to definitions of ‘EPBC Act conservation status’, ‘NC Act conservation status’ and
‘VM Act conservation status’ for meaning of Endangered under each Act
EPBC Act conservation
status
Under the EPBC Act, listed threatened species and ecological communities are
assigned a conservation status of ‘Extinct’, ‘Extinct in the Wild’, ‘Critically
Endangered’, ‘Endangered’, ‘Vulnerable’ or Conservation dependent. Definitions
of those relevant terms under the EPBC Act are as follows:
Extinct in the Wild

it is known only to survive in cultivation, in captivity or as a naturalised
population well outside its past range or

it has not been recorded in its known and / or expected habitat, at
appropriate seasons, anywhere in its past range, despite exhaustive
surveys over a time frame appropriate to its life cycle and form.

it is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate
future, as determined in accordance with the prescribed criteria.
Endangered

it is not Critically Endangered and

it is facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future, as
determined in accordance with the prescribed criteria.
Vulnerable

it is not Critically Endangered or Endangered and

it is facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future, as
determined in accordance with the prescribed criteria.
Habitat
An area or areas permanently, periodically or occasionally occupied by a species,
population or ecological community, including any and all biotic and abiotic
features of the area or areas occupied.
Migratory species
Species listed as ‘Migratory’ under the EPBC Act.
NC Act conservation
status
Under the NC Act, protected species are assigned a conservation status of
‘Extinct in the wild’, ‘Endangered’, ‘Vulnerable’, ‘Near Threatened’, or ‘Least
Concern’. Definitions of these terms under the NC Act are as follows:
Extinct in the wild

there have been thorough searches conducted for the wildlife and

it has not been seen in the wild over a period that is appropriate for the life
cycle or form of the wildlife.
Endangered

there have not been thorough searches conducted for the wildlife and the
wildlife has not been seen in the wild over a period that is appropriate for
the life cycle or form of the wildlife or
QGC 2015
Revision 5
Term
Meaning

the habitat or distribution of the wildlife has been reduced to an extent that
the wildlife may be in danger of extinction or

the population size of the wildlife has declined, or is likely to decline, to an
extent that the wildlife may be in danger of extinction or

the survival of the wildlife in the wild is unlikely if a threatening process
continues.
Vulnerable

its population is decreasing because of threatening processes or

its population has been seriously depleted and its protection is not secured
or

its population, while abundant, is at risk because of threatening processes
or

its population is low or localised or depends on limited habitat that is at risk
because of threatening processes.
Near Threatened

the population size or distribution of the wildlife is small and may become
smaller or

the population size of the wildlife has declined, or is likely to decline, at a
rate higher than the usual rate for population changes for the wildlife or

the survival of the wildlife in the wild is affected to an extent that the wildlife
is in danger of becoming vulnerable.
Least Concern

the wildlife is common or abundant and is likely to survive in the wild.
Near Threatened
Designated as ‘Near Threatened’ under the NC Act. Refer to definition of ‘NC Act
conservation statuses for meaning of Near Threatened under the NC Act.
Regional Ecosystem
A vegetation community, within a bioregion, that is consistently associated with a
particular combination of geology, landform and soil. REs may be classified under
schedules 1–3 of the Vegetation Management Regulation 2000 as Endangered,
Of Concern or Least Concern. Refer to ‘VM Act conservation statuses for
meaning of Endangered, Of Concern or Least Concern under the VC Act.
Remnant vegetation
Remnant woody vegetation is defined as vegetation where the dominant canopy
has >70% of the height and >50% of the cover relative to the undisturbed height
and cover of that stratum and is dominated by species characteristic of the
vegetation’s undisturbed canopy (Neldner et al. 2005).
Sequential clearing
Sequential clearing is a method of felling trees where operations are conducted in
discrete stages such that animals are provided sufficient time and space to move
from the clearing site of their own volition without the need for human intervention
to remove and relocate them (clearing of all trees on site in a single, uninterrupted
operation is not sequential clearing). Sequential clearing will take into account
any variation in landscape features such as rocky escarpments, riparian habitats
and steep sloping areas and provide fauna with sufficient time to exit the
disturbance area and a safe escape route.
QGC 2015
Revision 5
Term
Spotter Catcher
Meaning
A person that has been approved by DEHP under Section 12(d) – Nature
Conservation (Administration) Regulation 2006 and holds a valid Rehabilitation
Permit.
Licenced Fauna Spotter Catchers must have demonstrated the following to DEHP
before granting of a Rehabilitation Permit:

Demonstrated ability to handle a wide variety of wildlife, including
macropods and reptiles;

Well-developed wildlife identification skills;

Demonstrated ability to determine appropriate habitat through knowledge
of fauna/flora associations and habitat requirements; and

A minimum of two independent referees of professional standing within
wildlife rehabilitation or a related field to attest for the Fauna Spotter
Catchers wildlife knowledge as well as their own experience.
Approved Fauna Spotter Catchers should have relevant experience in zookeeping, veterinary practices and/or wildlife rehabilitation as well as access to
appropriate equipment to undertake fauna handling activities.
Fauna Spotter Catchers should be vaccinated against the Lyssavirus if handling
microbats and flying foxes.
Threatened
VM Act conservation
status
A term used for:

Flora and fauna species which have been designated as Extinct in the wild,
Endangered or Vulnerable under the NC Act;

Flora and fauna species which have been designated as Extinct in the wild,
Endangered or Vulnerable under the EPBC Act;

Ecological Communities designated as Critically Endangered, Endangered
or Vulnerable under the EPBC Act; and / or

REs designated as Endangered or Of Concern under the VM Act.
Under the VM Act, REs may be classified as either ‘Endangered’, ‘Of Concern’ or
‘Least Concern’. Definitions of these terms under the VM Act are provided below.
Endangered

less than 10% of pre-clearance extent of remnant vegetation (see following
definition) exists in the bioregion, or 10 to 30 % of pre-clearance extent
remains and the remnant vegetation is less than 10 000 hectares.
In addition, for biodiversity planning purposes DEHP also classifies a regional
ecosystem as Endangered if:

less than 10% of its pre-clearance extent remains unaffected by severe
degradation and / or biodiversity loss or

10-30% of its pre-clearance extent remains unaffected by severe
degradation and / or biodiversity loss and the remnant vegetation is less
than 10,000 hectares; or it is a rare regional ecosystem subject to a
threatening process.
Of Concern

10 to 30% of pre-clearance extent of remnant vegetation exists in the
bioregion, or more than 30% of pre-clearance extent remains and the
remnant vegetation is less than 10 000 hectares.
ecosystem as Of Concern if:

10-30% of its pre-clearance extent remains unaffected by moderate
QGC 2015
Revision 5
Term
Meaning
degradation and / or biodiversity loss.
Least Concern

more than 30% of pre-clearance extent of remnant vegetation exists in the
bioregion, and it is greater than 10, 000 hectares.
ecosystem as Least Concern if the degradation criteria listed above for
Endangered or Of Concern regional ecosystems are not met.
Vulnerable
Designated as ‘Vulnerable’ under the EPBC Act and / or NC Act. Refer to
definitions of ‘EPBC Act conservation status’ and ‘NC Act conservation statuses
for meaning of ‘Vulnerable’ under these Acts.
QGC 2015
Revision 5
In this document, the following acronyms and abbreviations apply:
Acronym/Abbreviation
Meaning
CE
CG
Queensland Coordinator-General
DEHP
The Department of the Environment and Heritage Protection
DoE
Department of the Environment
E
Endangered
EA
Environmental Authority
e.g.
Latin for exempli gratia (Meaning: for example)
EMP
Environment Management Plan
EPBC Act
Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
et al.
Latin for èt alii' (masculine plural) or èt aliae' (feminine plural) or èt alia'
(neuteral plural) (Meaning : and others)
EVNT
Endangered, Vulnerable and Near Threatened flora and fauna species under
the EPBC Act and NC Act
FEO
Field Environmental Officer
FES
Field Environment Superintendent
GCH
Gas Collection Header
GPS
Global Positioning System
Ha
Hectare
i.e.
Latin for id est (Meaning: that is)
MNES
Matters of National Environmental Significance
n/a
not applicable or not available
NC Act
Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992
NT
Near Threatened
RE
Regional Ecosystem
RoW
Right of Way
RRRMP
Remediation, Rehabilitation, Recovery and Monitoring Plan
SSRP
Site Specific Rehabilitation Plans
V
Vulnerable
VM Act
Queensland Vegetation Management Act 1999
QGC 2015
Revision 5
APPENDIX 2.
REFERENCED / ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS
Document Number
Title/Description
QCLNG-BX00-ENV-PLN-000023
Constraints Planning and Field Development Protocol
Gas Field Remediation, Rehabilitation, Recovery and Monitoring
Plan
Gas Field Pest and Weed Management Plan
QCLNG-BXOO-WAT-RPT-000005
Coal Seam Gas Water Monitoring and Management Plan – Stage 1
N/A
Statement No. 9 Policy for the Translocation of Threatened Fauna
in NSW
PR105153-1
Wieambilla Creek Assessment of Matters of National
Environmental Significance for the creek section potentially affected
by treated water discharge.
QCLNG-BG00-ENV-RPT-000004
Species Management Plan - Tampering with Breeding Place of a
Protected Animal Species.
QGC 2015
Revision 5
APPENDIX 3.
RELEVANT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
QGC 2015
Revision 5
Australian
Government
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
Approval
To develop, construct, o perate and decommission the Coal Seam Gas Field
component of the Queensland Curtis LNG Project, including expansion of the
QGC operated coal seam gas fields in the Surat Basin as described in referral
EPBC 2008/4398.
This decision is made under sections 130(1) and 133 of the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
person to whom the
approval is granted
Queensland Gas Company Ltd (QGC) and BG International
Limited (BG)
·
proponent's ABN
ABN: 089 642 553 (QGC)
ABN: 72 114 818 825 (BG)
proposed action
To develop, construct, operate and decommission the coal
seam gas field component of the Queensland Curtis LNG
Project, including expansion of the QGC operated coal seam
gas fields in the Surat Basin, to supply gas for the Queensland
Curtis LNG Project to the proposed Queensland Curtis LNG
Plant located on Curtis Island:
•
•
decision
as described in the proponent's referral received under the
EPBC Act on 18 August 2008; and
as described in the proponent's Environmental Impact
Statement and Supplementary Environmental Impact
Statement.
To approve the proposed action for each of the following
controlling provisions:
•
Listed threatened species and communities (sections 18
and 18A, EPBC Act)
•
Listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A, EPBC Act)
conditions of
approval
This approval is subject to the conditions specified below.
expiry date of
approval
This approval has effect until 31 October 2060.
name and position
signature
date of decision
The Hon Tony Burke MP
Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities
Conditions
Project area
1. The project area is the area identified at Figure 1, with a maximum gas field
development area of 26,760 ha, within the following petroleum tenures (as
they are at the date of the decision to which these conditions are attached):
• ATPs 610, 621, 632 (portion of), 647, 648, 651, 676 and 768 (portion of);
• PLs 179, 201, 228, 229, 171,180, 211, 247;
• PLAs 212, 257, 259, 261, 262, 263, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279.
Infrastructure limits
2.
Impacts must be limited to a maximum of 6,000 production wells and impacts
related to associated gas field development.
Constraints Planning and Field Development
Protocol for Constraints Planning and Field Development
3. Before the commencement of gas field development, the proponent must
develop a Constraints Planning and Field Development
Protocol (the
Protocol).
4. The Protocol must apply for the life of the project and include the principles of:
a.
avoiding direct and indirect adverse impacts on MNES;
b.
mitigating and managing direct and
cumulative adverse impacts on MNES;
c.
active site remediation and rehabilitation of impacted areas to promote
and maintain long-term recovery of MNES.
indirect
impacts
to
minimise
5. The Protocol must:
a.
classify the following as being within the proponent's
highest
environmental constraint class - Zone 4a (or should the proponent's
classification be revised, an equivalent high environmental constraints
class):
i.
all listed threatened ecological communities;
ii.
all listed flora species; and
iii.
those listed threatened and migratory fauna species habitats as
identified in management plans required under these
conditions,
which where relevant may be described in terms of specific niche
habitat types;
Note: The proponent's approach to environmental constraint class Zone 4a and related
impact avoidance and mitigation is described in volume 3, chapter 7 (7.6.2.4) of the
proponent's Environmental Impact Statement (dated July 2009). The protocol conditions
do not apply to the other constraints that the proponent has included in environmental
constraint class – Zone 4a unless these are relevant to MNES.
b.
take into account all current survey data and available information and
maps of all MNES relevant to the project area as described within
environmental constraint class Zone 4a;
c.
require the undertaking and documentation of planning and pre-clearance
site assessments and field ecological surveys in proposed gas field
development areas where constraint class Zone 4a is mapped, likely, or
found. The pre-clearance site assessments and field ecological surveys
must identify and assess options relating to potential gas field
development impacts on MNES and provide recommendations to inform
the proponent's decision to develop the project area;
d.
to avoid direct and indirect adverse impacts on MNES, including
fragmentation and edge effects, require the proponent to determine the
location of proposed infrastructure in accordance with the following:
i.
preferentially
avoid native vegetation that constitutes a listed
ecological community and/or may provide habitat for listed species
and utilise previously cleared or previously utilised areas;
ii.
wells from within
exclude exploration and production
areas
identified as environmental constraint class Zone 4a unless their
location within environmental constraint class Zone 4a is justified as
an exception given other constraints and the impact on any MNES
will be minimal, short term and recoverable; and
Note: Directional drilling and multiple drill holes from one well pad are options to
avoid well site and related infrastructure disturbance to environmental constraint
class Zone 4a.
iii.
either:
I.
II.
iv.
exclude other non linear infrastructure from the no impact zone; or
where the location of other non linear infrastructure in the no
impact zone is justified given other constraints and cannot be
avoided, only authorise the siting of that infrastructure in that
zone where field ecological surveys demonstrate that there will be
minimal, short term and recoverable, or no adverse impact on
any MNES, including habitat for any listed species;
either:
I.
II.
exclude linear infrastructure from the impact risk zone; or
where the location of linear infrastructure in the impact risk
zone is justified given other constraints and cannot be avoided,
only authorise the siting of that infrastructure in that zone where
field ecological surveys demonstrate that there will be minimal
adverse impact on any MNES, including habitat for any listed
species.
Note: Justification is reportable in accordance with condition 13 a) vii). The
management plan requirements under condition 8 h) may also indicate that a
species or its habitat can co-exist with specific types of gas field
infrastructure and operations.
e.
require the proponent to plan for and decide the extent that proposed
linear infrastructure may have adverse impacts on MNES in accordance
with the following:
3
all linear disturbance within environmental constraints class Zone 4a
for MNES and the impact risk zone must be:
i.
ii.
I.
limited to 6 metres in width for single lane track;
II.
limited to 15 metres if there are one or two parallel gas or water
gathering lines;
Ill.
limited to 20 metres if there are three, four, or five parallel gas or
water gathering lines;
IV.
limited to 25 metres if there are six, seven or eight parallel gas or
water gathering lines;
V.
limited to 30 metres if there are greater than eight parallel gas or
water gathering lines.
gas and water trunkline rights of way, water distribution pipeline
rights of way, the Upstream Infrastructure Corridor (UIC), and other
major
linear
infrastructure
disturbance
corridors
within
environmental constraints class Zone 4a and the impact risk zone
must be:
I.
limited to 30 m in width where there are one or two gas and
optic
water trunklines, underground 33kV power lines and fibre
cables in parallel;
II.
limited to 30 metres plus an additional 4 metres for every
additional gas or water trunkline in parallel with the initial one or
two gas or water trunklines, underground 33kV power lines and
fibre optic cable;
Ill.
iii.
limited to disturbance in the corridor described for the UIC.
where feasible, gas trunklines, pipelines for associated water and
other transmission lines must be co-located to reduce total
disturbance on MNES.
Note: Any area of a disturbance referred to in this condition would be subtracted
from the disturbance limits specified elsewhere in these conditions.
f.
support bioregional corridors for listed threatened species and migratory
species, and connectivity for listed threatened ecological communities;
g.
ensure site assessments and field ecological surveys:
i.
are undertaken in accordance with the Department's survey
guidelines in effect at the time of the survey. This information can
be obtained from http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/guidelinespolicies.html#lhreatened;
ii.
take into account and reference previous ecological surveys
undertaken in the area and relevant new information on likely
presence or absence of MNES;
iii.
are undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologist approved by the
Department;
iv.
document the survey methodology, results and significant findings in
relation to MNES.
v.
apply best practice site assessment and ecological survey methods
appropriate for each listed threatened species, migratory species,
their habitat and listed ecological communities;
Note: Best practice includes applying the optimum timing and frequency of site
assessments and surveys to determine presence or absence of listed threatened
4
species or migratory species or their habitat, or a listed threatened ecological
community.
vi.
apply the mapping of environmental constraints class Zone 4a; the
infrastructure location requirements; minimum no impact zones;
impact risk zones; and
the width
requirements
for
linear
infrastructure corridors described in e);
vii.
reports are published by the proponent on the internet 20 business
days before clearance of native vegetation
in an infrastructure
impact area and provided to the Department on .request;
h.
require species and
include:
i.
ii.
i.
ecological community management plans
which
relevant avoidance and mitigation measures to be applied;
measures for protecting each listed threatened species and
migratory species and their habitat, and each listed threatened
ecological community not previously assessed by the proponent,
should one or more be found in the project area at any time over the
life of the project. Any s u c h m a n a g e m e n t p l a n s m u s t b e
developed in a timeframe to be approved by the Department.
Notification of additional MNES found must be provided to the
Department in writing within 10 business days. Measures must
include the development of a management plan consistent with
requirements under condition 8; and
ensure constraints planning and field development decisions are made in
accordance with the Protocol (including any relevant
species
and
ecological community management plans) before final selection of
specific sites for gas field development within the project area.
6. The Protocol must ensure relevant information on MNES is available and
used by the proponent to support field development and management
decisions throughout the life of the project.
Management plans for listed species and ecological communities
7. Before commencement of each major stage of gas field development the
proponent must develop management plans for that area addressing each
listed species and listed ecological community that, as indicated through
assessment or more recent information, may be potentially impacted by gas
field development within the project area (defined by condition 1), or external to
the project area, as a result of gas field development. The management plans
must address as a minimum, the ecological communities and species and their
habitat as specified in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of these conditions:
Note 1: The proponent may develop management plans to align with the requirements of the
Queensland Government where there are species and ecological communities covered by both
Queensland requirements and the requirements of this approval.
Note 2: Major stages of development are to be notified under condition 88.
Table 1: Species potentially impacted by gas field development for
which management plans are required
Species
EPBC
Indicative
habitat status
Oasyurus
hallucatus
(Northern Quoll)
Endangered
Habitat generally encompasses some form of
rocky area for denning purposes with
surrounding vegetated habitats used for
foraging and dispersal.
Preferred habitat of rocky hills and
escarpments, open forest and open woodland
Chalinolobus
Vulnerable
dwyeri (Largeeared Pied Bat,
Large Pied Bat)
Tumix
melanogaster
(Black-breasted
Button-quail)
Erythrotriorchis
Usually found in proximity to cliff lines and
escarpments and sandstone outcrops where
shallow caves appear to be used as roosts,
although the species is also known to use tree
hollows. Known to forage in adjoining
woodlands including Brigalow ecological
communities
Vulnerable
Vulnerable
Drier low closed forests, particularly semievergreen vine thicket, low microphyll vine
forest, araucarian microphyll vine forest and
araucarian notophyll vine Forest
Eucalypt woodland, open forest, gallery
rainforest, swamp, sclerophyll forest and
rainforest margins, Usually in association with
large tracts of forest. Prefers a mosaic of
radiatus (Red
Goshawk)
vegetation types and permanent water.
.
Rostratufa
australis
(Australian
Painted Snipe)
Vulnerable
permanent lakes, swamps and claypans.
Favours freshwater swamps and samphire
salt marshes.
Delma torquata
(Collared Delma)
Potentially any wetland and farm dams with
suitable vegetation cover, temporary and
Vulnerable
Eucalypt or acacia dominated woodland
including Brigalow ecological communities
and open forest where it is associated with
suitable microhabitats (exposed rocky
outcrops or a sparse understorey of tussock
grass, shrubs or semi-evergreen vine thickets).
Geophaps
scriptascripta
(Squatter Pigeon
(Southern))
Vulnerable
roads and railways, and around settlements).
Grassy woodlands and open forest that are
dominated by eucalypts, open grassy
pastures in association with cattle grazing
marshes, acacia growth and disturbed
habitats (i.e. around stockyards, along
Denisonia
maculata
Vulnerable
Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla) woodland
growing on clay, cracking clay soils and
Table 1: Species potentially impacted by gas field development
for which management plans are required
Species
Indicative habitat
EPBC
status
sandy soils, riverside woodland and open
forest growing on natural levees and other
riparian habitats.
(Ornamental
Snake)
Shelters under fallen timber and in soil
cracks. Known from cleared grazing and
cropping lands where suitable soils exist.
Furina dunmalli
(Dunmall's
Snake)
Nyctophilus
timoriensis
Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla) forest and
Vulnerable
woodland growing on cracking black clay
and clay loam soils (usually on heavy clay
soils): Also known to occur in eucalypt and
callitris woodland with fallen timber and
qround litter.
River red gum forest, semi-arid woodlands,
Vulnerable
savannahs and open woodlands, often in
association with riverine environments in
Brigalow Belt of inland Queensland.
(Eastern Longeared Bat)
Note 1: Table 1 is derived from Table 2 EPBC Act Listed Ecological Community and Flora
Species Impacts; Table. 3 MNES Fauna Species Requiring Offset Consideration; and Table 2
Determination of EPBC Act Listed Fauna Species Impacted of the Unidel QCLNG Project
Revised Terrestrial Offsets and Implementation
Report
QGC020-ENV-RPT0002 24 June
2010
and from listed threatened species profiles available on the Department's website.
Note 2: Habitat for species in Table 1 is to be fully described in the management plan for each
species as required under condition 8. The habitat described in Table 1 is for general context and
indicative only.
8. The management plans required under condition 7 must be developed by a
qualified ecologist approved in writing by the Department and as a minimum
address the following as is relevant to each MNES:
a.
current legal status (under EPBC Act);
b.
known distribution;
c.
known species' populations and their relationships within the region;
d.
extent of ecological community fragmentation within the region and if
appropriate minimum patch size for that community;
e.
to support field identification and ecological surveys, description of the
relevant characteristics of the ecological community;
f.
species' biology, reproduction and description of general habitat;
g.
to support field identification and ecological surveys, description of the
species' habitat, which may be described in terms of essential habitat and
microhabitat, associations with geology, soils, landscape features,
associations with other native fauna and/or flora or ecological
communities, and specific niche habitat descriptions;
Note: Constraints mapping may be limited by available data for many species and may
therefore be inadequate to map habitat requirements for planning and management
purposes, or to indicate presence without on ground assessment. Condition 8 g) requires the
essential components of a species' habitat to be described where relevant to support field
identification and environmental constraints decision making. This should include
essential habitat components for widely distributed species present in low numbers and for
other species likely to be present but not often observed.
h.
threats to MNES relating to the development and management of land
within the gas fields including from the development, operation and
decommissioning of infrastructure within the gas fields; and from
groundwater extraction and aquifer depressurisation, CSG water use and
disposal, whether the threat is within or outside the gas field development
area;
Note: This part of a management plan may also indicate that a species or its habitat can
co-exist with specific types of gas field operations.
i.
relevant management practices and methods to minimise impact and
recover from impact that should include:
i.. site rehabilitation timeframes, standards and methods;
ii.
use of sequential clearing to direct fauna away from an impact zone; re-
iii.
establishment of native vegetation in linear infrastructure corridors;
iv.
welfare and safe handling of fauna specimens requiring relocation
from impact sites;
v.
handling practices for flora specimens;
vi.
translocation practices and monitoring for translocation success;
vii.
monitoring methods including for rehabilitation success and recovery;
j.
surface and ground water quality and quantity requirements, including
relevant downstream environmental quality parameters;
k.
reference relevant conservation advice, recovery plans, or other policies,
practices, standards or guidelines relevant to MNES published or approved
from time to time by the Department.
Note: The management plans must include sufficient detail to inform field development
decisions, ongoing management and decommissioning, and management external to the
project area to minimise impacts on MNES through the life of the project.
Note 1: To the extent that the requirements of condition 8 are satisfied for each species, a
single plan may be prepared to address a group of species which have similar ecological
characteristics and habitat needs. Other conditions also require species or ecological
community management plans to be developed in certain circumstances in accordance with
condition 8.
9. Each species and ecological community management plan must be submitted for
the approval of the Minister. Commencement of each major stage of gas field
development within the project area must not occur without written approval of a
plan for each listed species and ecological community within the proposed area
of development. The proponent may undertake activities that are critical to
commencement that are associated with mobilisation of plant and equipment,
materials, machinery and personnel prior to the start of development only if such
activities will have no adverse impact on MNES, and only if the proponent has
notified the Department in writing before an activity is undertaken. Approved
species and ecological c o m m u n i t y m a n a g e m e n t plans must be implemented.
10. The proponent must establish a program for routine review of the species and
ecological community management plans to be undertaken by a qualified
ecologist approved by the Department (with other experts as appropriate) to
take into account any new information available to the proponent, including
any information and advice provided by Commonwealth or Queensland
Government agencies, or available from other CSG proponents.
11. The Minister may require through a request in writing the periodic review of the
species and ecological community management plans, either by the Department;
or alternatively by an independent qualified ecologist, or other experts, approved
by the Department.
12. Independent review of plans will be at the financial expense of the proponent.
Once independently reviewed, plans must be submitted for written approval by
the Department. Approved plans must be implemented.
Record of impacts
13. If an impact occurs (which may include a presumed impact where the species is
presumed to be present) to a MNES during gas field development, operation,
or decommissioning the proponent must:
a.
record the impact by reference to:
i.
ii.
iii.
the location, specific site and type of infrastructure or activity;
each MNES subject to disturbance;
the related site assessment or field ecological survey documentation
and recommendations, or the decision that the particular MNES was
presumed to be present;
iv.
the disturbance limit set under 25;
v.
the total area of actual disturbance;
vi.
vii.
viii.
the remaining disturbance limit for each affected MNES;
the reasons for the decision including justification for the action taken,
description of the efforts taken to avoid impact, and explanation why
other constraints might justify the impact on MNES;
actions and commitments by the proponent to remediate, rehabilitate, or
make good any unauthorised disturbance; and
Note: This condition applies to any adverse impact on MNES, whether or not a
disturbance limit has been set, and whether or not the impact has been decided by the
proponent under the Protocol based on other physical constraints.
b.
record the information to a standard which can be independently audited.
Site remediation, rehabilitation and recovery plan
14. Where a direct or indirect impact has occurred to MNES (which may include a
presumed impact where the species is presumed
to be present) the
proponent must under the Protocol apply remediation,
rehabilitation
and
recovery measures appropriate for each MNES to restore connectivity or
rehabilitate disturbed areas to pre-clearance quality or better, and to minimise
cumulative impacts throughout the life of the project.
15. Before commencement of gas field development the proponent must develop a
Remediation, Rehabilitation, Recovery and Monitoring Plan. The Plan must:
9
a.
include site remediation measures including timeframes and standards for
preventing erosion and stabilising disturbed soil in impact areas;
b.
include measures to support recovery of listed species' habitat and
recovery of listed
ecological communities
affected by gas field
development;
c.
include responses to threats to MNES from the proponent's operational
activities and land management activities including the disposal and use of
associated water, damage by livestock, and impacts from feral animals and
weeds;
d.
provide for fire prevention and management regimes during construction,
operation, and decommissioning to protected MNES;
e.
include performance measures and related
remediation, rehabilitation and recovery;
f.
provide for reporting on the implementation
of the Remediation,
Rehabilitation, Recovery and Monitoring Plan including monitoring and
performance to a standard which can be independently audited;
g.
reference relevant conservation advice, recovery plans, species management
plans, or policies, practices, standards or guidelines endorsed or approved
from time to time by the Department.
monitoring to
assess
site
Note: The proponent may develop the plan to satisfy the requirements of both the Queensland
Government and these conditions as indicated in condition 98b).
16. The Remediation, Rehabilitation, Recovery and Monitoring Plan must be
submitted for the approval of the Minister. Commencement of
gas field
development must not occur without approval of this Plan. The proponent
that are
may undertake activities that are critical to commencement
associated with mobilisation of plant and equipment, materials, machinery
and personnel prior to the start of development only if such activities will have
no adverse impact on MNES, and only if the proponent has notified the
Department in writing before an activity is undertaken. The approved
Remediation, Rehabilitation,
Recovery and Monitoring Plan
must be
implemented.
17. The proponent must establish a program to routinely review the Remediation,
Rehabilitation, Recovery and Monitoring Plan by an independent qualified
ecologist, or other experts, approved by the Department to take into account
any new information available to the proponent, including any information and
advice provided by Commonwealth or Queensland Government agencies, or
available from other CSG proponents.
18. The Minister may require through a request in writing the periodic review of
the Remediation,
Rehabilitation,
Recovery and Monitoring Plan by the
Department, or alternatively by an independent qualified ecologist, or other
experts, approved by the Department. Plans must be approved by the
Department in writing.
19. Independent review of plans will be at the financial expense of the proponent.
Once independently reviewed, plans must be submitted for written approval
by the Department. Approved plans must be implemented.
10
Approval and Review of Protocol
20. The Protocol must be submitted for the approval of the Minister.
Commencement of gas field development must not occur
without written
approval of the Protocol. The proponent may undertake activities that are
critical to commencement that are associated with mobilisation of plant and
equipment, materials, machinery and personnel prior to the start of development
only if such activities will have no adverse impact on MNES, and only if the
proponent has notified the Department in writing before an activity is undertaken.
The approved Protocol must be implemented.
21. The Protocol and related plans must be reviewed and updated by the
proponent to take into account the findings of the Cumulative Impact Assessment
Report required by the Queensland Government; before each major stage of the
proponent's gas field development; or following a written request from the
Department. Reviewed and updated Protocols and plans must be submitted for
the Minister's written approval. Once approved, updated Protocols and plans
must be implemented.
Note: The review required following completion of the Cumulative Impact Assessment Report
required by the Queensland Government may be done after approval of the Protocol. The
Department may seek review of the Protocol to align with Queensland
Government
requirements to support efficiency and avoid duplication.
22. The proponent's review of the Protocol must take into account all relevant
studies, policies, standards, guidelines and advice relating to CSG activity
published or provided to the proponent by the Commonwealth or Queensland
governments, or published or provided by
other proponents
undertaking
similar activities, or published or provided by other parties, including any
findings of an audit against conditions, or plans or other documentation
required under the conditions of this approval.
23. The Department may require through request in writing that the Protocol and
related plans be revised or amended before approval. Any such request must
be acted on within the time frame specified.
24. The approved
Protocol must be incorporated
into the p r o p o n e n t’s
management procedures, operational plans and other relevant documentation
and kept current for the life of the project.
Disturbance limits
25. The following maximum disturbance limits in Table 2 and Table 3 below apply to
authorised unavoidable adverse impacts on MNES as a result of exploration,
development, operation and decommissioning within the project area illustrated
in Attachment 1, and external to it, ('whole of project' disturbance limits) and all
associated activities for the life of the project.
11
Table 2: Disturbance limits for listed threatened ecological communities
Ecological community
Brigalow (Acacia
harpophylla dominant
and co-dominant)
EPBC Act status
Endangered
The community of native Endangered
species dependent on
natural discharge of
groundwater from the
Great Artesian Basin
Semi-evergreen vine
thickets of Brigalow Belt
(North and South) and
Nandewar Bioregions
Natural Grasslands of
the Queensland Central
Highlands and the
northern Fitzroy Basin
Disturbance limit (ha)
Endangered
Endangered
73 ha
0 (No disturbance
authorised)
0 (No disturbance the
authorised)
0 (No disturbance
authorised)
Note: Table 2 is derived from Table 2 EPBC Act Listed Ecological Community and Flora
Species Impacts of the Unidel QCLNG Project Revised Terrestrial Offsets and Implementation
Report QGC020-ENV-RPT0002 24 June 2010).
Table 3: Disturbance limits for listed species
Species
Paradelma
orientalis
(Brigalow
Scaly-foot)
EPBC status
Disturbance limit
(ha)
Vulnerable
Indicative habitat
Occurs in a wide range of
235* ha of potential
habitat
{dry) forest and
woodland habitats,
including Brigalow
woodland, Vine thicket
regrowth and rocky
habitats on sandstone
ridges to flats and gently
undulating plains with
clay, loan or sand. Not
tolerant of clearings.
Egernia
rugosa
Egernia rugosa
Open dry sclerophyll
forest or woodland,
Brigalow, shrublands,
lancewood forests on
sandy and open textured
soils.
Dense ground cover,
cavities in soil-bound
.
.
.
12
Table 3: Disturbance limits for listed species
Species
EPBCstatus
Disturbance limit
(ha)
Indicative habitat
root systems of fallen
trees and beneath rocks,
hollow logs and animal
burrows are considered
to provide suitable
Philotheca
sporadica
Vulnerable
10 ha
microhabitat for this
species.
Open to closed
shrubland to closed
woodland. Shallow
sandy to clay loams or
shallow texture contrast
soils with loamy surfaces
and medium clay
subsoils. Ironstone
gravel usually present
within soil column. Some
sites have duricrust
surfaces.
• Disturbance limits for Brigalow Scaly-foot and Yakka Skink potential habitat are as per the
methodology applied in Unidel QCLNG Project Revised Terrestrial Offsets and Implementation
Report QGC020-ENV-RPT0002 24 June 2010.
Note: Table 3 is derived from: Table 2 EPBC Act Listed Ecological Community and Flora
Species Impacts, Table 3 MNES Fauna Species Requiring Offset Consideration, and Table 2
Determination of EPBC Act Listed Fauna Species Impacted of the Unidel QCLNG Project
Revised Terrestrial Offsets and Implementation Report QGC020-ENV-RPT0002 24 June 2010;
and from the listed threatened species profiles available on the Department’s website.
Habitat for species in Table 3 will be described in the management plan for each species as
required under condition 8. The
habitat described
in
Table
3
is
for
general context and
indicative only.
Offsets
Plan to secure offsets
26. Within 6 months of the commencement of the action the proponent must prepare
an Offset Plan to provide an offset area for the approved disturbance limits
relating to MNES Within the project area. The offset area to be secured must be
an area of private land which includes at least:
a.
b.
c.
d.
80 ha of Philotheca sporadica habitat; and
343 ha of potential Egemia rugosa (Yakka Skink) habitat which includes
micro habitat required for the species; and
235 ha of potential Parade/rna orienta/is (Brigalow Scaly-foot) habitat
which includes micro habitat required for the species; and
730 ha of Brigalow with representation of the following;
i.
30% r e m n a n t Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and c o dominant); and
ii.
70% which is a combination of:
I.
high value regrowth Brigalow; and
13
II.
other Brigalow regrowth with potential for management to
remnant Brigalow status.
Note: Offsetting requirements for some species'
habitat may be accommodated within
the
Brigalow components if this habitat is verified as present and includes specific habitat
requirements for each relevant species.
27. The Offset Plan must include details of the offset area including: the timing
and arrangements for securing properties, maps and site description,
environmental values relevant to MNES, connectivity with other habitats and
biodiversity corridors, a rehabilitation program, and mechanisms for long-term
protection, conservation and management.
28. The Offset Plan must be submitted for the approval of the Minister within 6
months of the commencement of the action. The approved Offset Plan must be
implemented.
29. If the a p p r o v e d O f f s e t P la n cannot b e im p le m e n te d b e c a u s e of failure of
arrangements to secure the necessary area of private land then the proponent must
submit for the Minister's approval an alternative Offset Plan. The alternative
Offset Plan must provide at least an equivalent environmental outcome to those
specified under condition 26(a) to (d). The approved alternative Offset Plan must
be implemented.
30. If the proponent proposes any action within a proposed offset area, other than
actions related to managing that area as an offset property, approval must be
obtained, in writing from the Department. In seeking Departmental approval
the proponent must provide a detailed assessment of the proposed action
including a map identifying where the action is proposed to take place and an
assessment of all associated adverse impacts on MNES. If the Department
agrees to the action within the proposed offset site, the area identified for the
action must be excised from the proposed offset and alternative offsets
secured of equal or greater environmental value in relation to the impacted
MNES.
31. The proponent must secure the offset within 2 years of commencement.
OffsetArea Management
32. Within 12 months of securing the offset area required under the approved
Offset Plan, the proponent must develop an Offset Area Management Plan
which must specify measures to improve ·the environmental values of the
offset area in relation to MNES, including;
a.
the documentation and mapping of current environmental values relevant to
MNES of the area;
b.
measures to address threats to MNES including but not limited to grazing
pressure and damage by livestock and adverse impacts from feral animals
and weeds;
c.
measures to provide fire management regimes appropriate for the MNES;
14
d.
management of revegetation areas to the stage where habitat is
established or improved for listed species and revegetation areas meet
the criteria for 'remnant status' for that threatened ecological community;
e.
an objective, that revegetation areas for Brigalow meet the
criteria
applicable at the time for 'remnant status', and measures to ensure
application is made to have
the revegetation areas reclassified
as
'remnant vegetation' in accordance
with
the
relevant Queensland
legislation;
f.
monitoring, including the undertaking of ecological surveys to assess the
success of the management measures against identified milestones and
objectives;
g.
performance
measures and reporting requirements
against identified
objectives, including trigger levels for corrective actions and the actions to be
taken to ensure performance measures and objectives are met.
33. Within 12 months of securing the offset area the Offset Area Management Plan
must be submitted for the approval of the Minister. The approved Offset Area
Management Plan must be implemented.
Rehabilitation Area Offset
34. Within 2 years of the commencement of gas field development the proponent
must secure a Rehabilitation Area Offset of at least 700 hectares of privately
held property to compensate for indirect adverse impacts on MNES. The
proponent must:
a.
obtain ownership or a legally binding agreement from a landowner over an
area of property to re-establish areas in perpetuity of the threatened
Brigalow (Acacia harpophyl/a dominant and co-dominant) ecological
community and associated listed migratory and listed threatened species'
habitat; and
b.
notify the Department in writing within 30 business days of securing the
Rehabilitation Area Offset.
Note: The Rehabilitation Area Offset is an additional area to the Offset area required
under condition 26.
·
35. The Rehabilitation Area Offset must:
a.
Be within historical distributions of the ecological community (before
clearing occurred) and as close as possible to the project area;
b.
include intact elements of remnant and/or high value regrowth of the Brigalow
(Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant) ecological community; and
c.
include or have potential for providing habitat and micro habitat
requirements for listed migratory and threatened species (i.e. those in
Table 3 that relate to this ecological community).
36. If, within 2 years of the commencement of gas field development the
Rehabilitation Area Offset has not been secured, then the proponent must
within 30 business days, notify the Minister and provide for the Minister's
approval an alternative offset measure. The alternative must provide at least
15
an equivalent environmental outcome to those specified in relation to the
Rehabilitation Area Offset. The approved alternative must be secured and
implemented in accordance with conditions 34 and
35 in a timeframe
specified in writing by the Minister.
Rehabilitation Area Plan
37. Within 2 years of the commencement of gas field development, the proponent
must prepare a Rehabilitation Area Plan for the offset required under
condition 34.
38. The Rehabilitation Area Plan must provide for commitments and actions to lead
to the increase in the spatial extent and improvement in the condition of existing
remnants, and for the establishment of new self sustaining, functional 'remnant
vegetation' communities, consistent with that which existed prior to clearing and
with the capacity to provide habitat for the species identified in condition 25 as
unavoidably impacted by the action.
39. The Rehabilitation Area Plan must include:
a.
details of the area to be rehabilitated including location and maps;
b.
documentation including mapping
relevant to MNES of the area;
environmental
values
c.
where revegetation through planting seedlings and/or seeds is
details of appropriate species and ratios of species relevant to
occurring listed migratory
and threatened
species' habitat
Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla
dominant and co-dominant)
community;
intended
historically
and the
ecological
d.
the source and provenance of the seed and/or seedlings which will be
used;
e.
measures to address threats to MNES including but not limited to grazing
pressure and damage by livestock and adverse impacts from feral animals
and weeds;
f.
measures to provide fire management regimes appropriate for the MNES;
g.
monitoring measures including ecological surveys to measure the
establishment and ongoing success of the revegetation based on a
comparison with high quality habitat for listed migratory and threatened
species and ecological community reference sites;
h.
performance measures and reporting requirements against identified
objectives, including trigger levels for corrective actions and the actions to
be taken to ensure performance measures and objectives are met.
of
current
40. Within 2 years of the commencement of gas field development
the
Rehabilitation Area Plan must be submitted for the approval of the Minister.
The approved Rehabilitation Area Plan must be implemented.
16
41. To ensure the long term protection of the Rehabilitation Area the proponent
must:
a.
manage the Rehabilitation Area to a stage where it meets the criteria for
'remnant vegetation' for the Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and codominant) ecological community.
b.
When areas of revegetation meet criteria applicable at the
time for
'remnant vegetation' ensure application is made to have the revegetation
areas remapped and reclassified as 'remnant vegetation' in accordance
with the relevant Queensland legislation. The management measures
must continue to be implemented in areas not meeting the criteria for
'remnant status' until this has been achieved (or until approval to cease
the management regime is provided by the Minister in writing);
c.
define corrective actions which will be undertaken if performance
measures and reporting indicate that successful rehabilitation has not
been achieved;
d.
identify persons responsible and arrangements for implementing
Rehabilitation Area Plan and for reporting on performance; and
e.
notify the Department in writing of the reclassification of areas within the
Rehabilitation Area as 'remnant vegetation' within 30 business days of
the reclassification occurring.
the
42. If the proponent proposes any action within a proposed offset area, other than
actions related to managing that area as an offset property, approval must be
obtained, in writing from the Department. In seeking Departmental approval
the proponent must provide a detailed assessment of the proposed action
including a map identifying where the action is proposed to take place and an
assessment of all associated adverse impacts on MNES. If the Department
agrees to the action within the proposed offset site, the area identified for the
action must be excised from the proposed offset and alternative offsets
secured of equal or greater environmental value in relation to the impacted
MNES.
CSG Water Management
43. The proponent must:
a.
take all reasonable measures to ensure that CSG water, including extracted
groundwater, treated or amended CSG water, and any associated waste
water, brine crystals and/or solids generated as a result of treating or
amending water have no significant impact on any MNES during or beyond
the life of the project; and
b.
if any such impacts arise apply measures identified in the Coal Seam
Gas Water Monitoring and Management Plan, or other requirements
under these conditions, to mitigate or make good such impacts to the
satisfaction of the Minister.
17
Coal Seam Gas Water Monitoring and Management Plan
Hydraulic connection
44. If the proponent demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Minister, on the advice of
the expert panel, that an aquifer has negligible hydraulic c o n n e c t i v i t y t o
other aquifers, then groundwater drawdown limits and threshold values (for
groundwater drawdown and quality) for response measures in these
conditions do not apply to that aquifer.
45. To avoid doubt, monitoring and risk management requirements in the Stage 1
Coal Seam Gas Water Monitoring and Management Plan (Stage 1 CSG WMMP),
the Stage 2 Coal Seam Gas Water Monitoring and Management Plan (Stage 2
CSG WMMP) and Stage 3 Coal Seam Gas Water Monitoring and Management
Plan (Stage 3 CSG WMMP) (outlined below) will continue to apply to any aquifer which
the proponent has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Minister, on the advice of
the expert panel, has negligible hydraulic connectivity to other aquifers.
46. If the Minister, acting on advice of an expert panel, is satisfied that new evidence
indicates a material change in hydraulic connectivity of an aquifer to which
condition 44 applies, the Minister may notify the proponent, in writing, that
condition 44 does not apply to that aquifer.
Default drawdown
47. Within 20 business days from the date of the project approval, or such longer
period specified by the Minister in writing, the proponent must submit to the
satisfaction of the Minister, modelled groundwater drawdown c o n t o u r d a t a and
contour plots for each targeted aquifer.
48. The Minister, having regard to the minimum drawdown prediction from the
proponent's Environmental Impact Statement and the information supplied under
condition 47, will specify to the proponent, in writing, the default groundwater
drawdown limit for each aquifer that will apply until the Minister's approval of
the Stage 1 CSG WMMP. The proponent must not exceed the groundwater
drawdown limits specified by the Minister.
Stage 1 CSG Water Monitoring and Management Plan
49. Within 6 months from the date of the project approval, the proponent must
submit for the approval of the Minister a Stage 1 Coal Seam Gas Water
Monitoring and Management Plan (Stage 1 CSG WMMP) which includes at
least:
Groundwater monitoring and management
a.
groundwater drawdown limits for each targeted aquifer;
b.
[removed to Stage 3 WMMP]
c.
a program and schedule for field piloting of aquifer reinjection of treated
CSG water and other groundwater repressurisation techniques;
18
d.
early warning
approached.
indicators
where
drawdown
thresholds
are
being
Hydraulic fracturing
e.
the estimated number and the spatial distribution of boreholes where
hydraulic fracturing may be necessary, an annual review of the estimate,
and recording of actual use;
f.
Surface water monitoring and management
g.
an ongoing water quality and quantity surface water monitoring plan that
includes at least:
i.
identification of the surface and aquatic systems to be monitored and
their environmental
values;
water
quality,
and environmental
characteristics, and the rationale for selection;
ii.
the number and locations of monitoring sites upstream and downstream
of proposed discharge of CSG water (whether treated water,
amended water or raw water), including test and reference sites
upstream and downstream and before and
after any proposed
impacts;
iii.
the frequency of the monitoring and rationale for the frequency;
iv.
baseline data for each monitoring site for comparison of monitoring
results over the life of the project;
v.
the approach to be taken to analyse the results including the methods to
determine trends to indicate potential impacts;
vi.
threshold values that protect relevant MNES (such as reporting or
more intensive
control line values for additional investigation,
management action, make good, and cease operations) at which
management actions will be initiated to respond to escalating levels of
risk and designed to protect water quality and the associated
environmental values of surface and aquatic systems;
vii.
water treatment and amendment methods and standards;
viii.
water storage locations and volumes including any storage and
volumes required to pilot or implement
reinjection or other
groundwater repressurisation techniques;
ix.
water use or disposal options and methods (whether for beneficial use or
not) including frequency, volumes, quality and environmental values
documented for each receiving environment;
x.
brine storage
management;
xi.
emergency water discharges, their volumes and quality;
xii.
references to standards and relevant policies and guidelines;
locations
and
19
volumes,
and
brine
crystal
waste
Response actions
h.
mechanisms to avoid, minimise and manage risk of adverse impacts and
response actions and timeframes that can be taken by the proponent if:
i.
ii.
threshold values for surface water quality and water environmental
values specified in the CSG WMMP are exceeded;
Reporting
i.
performance measures, annual reporting
publication of reports on the internet.
to the
Department,
and
Note: A key objective of the CSG WMMP groundwater components is to maintain or restore
aquifer pressure, as affected by CSG production, to levels that avoid risk of adverse impact on
MNES.
50. The proponent must implement the Stage 1 CSG WMMP
the Minister, on the advice of an expert panel. The
exceed the groundwater drawdown limits for each aquifer
1 CSG WMMP. The Stage 1 CSG WMMP will apply until
the approved Stage 2 CSG WMMP.
approved in writing by
proponent must not
specified in the Stage
the commencement of
51. Within 18 months from the date of the approval of the action the proponent
must submit for the approval of the Minister, a Stage 2 Coal Seam Gas Water
Monitoring and Management Plan (Stage 2 CSG WMMP). The proponent must
allow a further 3 months for the Minister's consideration of approval of the
Stage 2 CSG WMMP including seeking advice from an expert panel.
52. In addition to the matters in the Stage 1 CSG WMMP, the Stage 2 CSG WMMP
must also include:
a.
an ongoing CSG water treatment program to ensure that any water to be
used for re-injection, or used for other groundwater
repressurisation
options, is treated at least equal to the water quality of the receiving
groundwater system or environment;
b.
the method, data and the evidentiary standards necessary to support a
conclusion that an aquifer from which CSG water is being extracted is not
hydraulically connected to other aquifers;
c.
a groundwater quality and quantity monitoring plan to monitor the
aquifers underlying
the project area using a statistically and
hydrogeologically valid, best practice bore monitoring network across the
project area, and at least;
i.
the aquifers to be monitored and the rationale for selection;
ii.
the number and locations of monitoring bores and their flow, pressure,
head, and water quality characteristics;
iii.
20
iv.
[removed to Stage 3 WMMP;]
v.
[removed to Stage 3 WMMP;]
vi.
groundwater drawdown threshold values and
groundwater
quality
threshold values for each aquifer (based on
regional
groundwater
modelling endorsed by the Minister) at which management actions (such
as reporting or control line values for additional investigation, more
intensive management action, make good, and cease operations) will be
initiated to respond to escalating levels of risk, including
increasing
levels of drawdown, contamination of groundwater, or subsidence;
vii. references to standards and relevant policies and guidelines;
viii. [removed to Stage 3 WMMP]; and
ix.
publication of reports on the internet;
to
Note 1: Threshold values will be identified in the
plan and during the life of the
the Department, and
approval and related conditions may be varied by the Minister on advice from an
expert panel to reflect the best available data and scientific information.
Note 2: For clarity, the monitoring required under this condition may be undertaken
jointly with others.
Response actions
d.
an exceedence response plan that includes:
i.
ii.
mechanisms to avoid, minimise and manage risk of adverse impacts
and response actions and timeframes that can be taken by the
proponent if:
I.
threshold values
environmental
exceeded;
for surface water quality and water
values specified in the CSG WMMP are
II.
removed to Stage 3 WMMP;
Ill.
removed to Stage 3 WMMP;
IV.
removed to Stage 3 WMMP; and
[removed to Stage 3 WMMP.]
Note: The design of these groundwater repressurisation activities must be informed by a
regional-scale groundwater model and a hydrochemical model approved by the Minister.
53
The proponent must implement the approved Stage 2 WMMP no later than 26 months
from the date of the project approval.
21
Implementation of Stage 1 and Stage 2 CSG WMMP
53A. Within 33 months from the date of the approval of the action the proponent
Monitoring and Management Plan (Stage 3 CSG WMMP). The proponent
must allow at least a further 3 months for the Minister's consideration of
approval of the Stage 3 CSG WMMP including seeking advice from an
expert panel.
53B. In addition to the matters in the Stage 1 CSG WMMP and the Stage 2 CSG
WMMP,the Stage 3 CSG WMMP must also include:
a program and schedule for aquifer connectivity studies and monitoring of
relevant aquifers to determine hydraulic connectivity;
a.
b
c.
details of constit uent components of any hydraulic fracturing agents
and any other reinjected fluid(s), and their toxicity as individual substances
and as total effluent toxicity and ecotoxicity, based on methods outlined
in the National Water Quality Management Strategy;
response actions and timeframes that can be taken by the proponent if
there are any unforeseen emergency discharges;
d.
a groundwater quality and quantity monitoring plan to monitor the aquifers
underlying the project area using a statistically and hydrogeologically
valid , best practice bore monitoring network across the project area, and at
least;
i.
baseline data for
each monitoring
site
monitoring results over the life of the project;
ii.
the approach to be taken to analyse the results including the methods
to determine trends to indicate potential impacts; and
iii.
mechanisms to monitor, avoid, minimise, manage, and respond to risks.
for
comparison
of
jointly with others.
e
i.
I.
II.
III.
ii.
threshold values specified in the CSG WMMP for aquifer
drawdown or groundwater contamination are exceeded ;
subsidence or surface deformation occurs which impacts on
surface or groundwater hydrology ;
there are any unforeseen emergency discharges ; and
a program and timetable for repressurisation using re-injection of CSG
water from hydraulically connected aquifers back into appropriate
permeable aquifers and for other groundwater repressurisation options
to re-establish pressure levels and water qualities to the satisfaction of
the Minister on the advice of an expert panel, in conjunction with
appropriate measures to forecast and proactively manage any shortterm impacts.
regional-scale groundwater model and a hydrochemical model approved by the Minister.
21a
Implementation of Stage 3 CSG WMMP
53C. The proponent must implement the approved Stage 3 CSG WMMP, no
later than 38 months from the date of the project approval.
54.
Three months before commencement of each subsequent major stage of the
proponent's gas field development the proponent must submit a revised
Stage 3 CSG WMMP for the consideration of approval of the Minister
including seeking the advice of an expert panel.
55.
The Coal Seam Gas Water Monitoring and Management Plan should be
based on the proponent's planned staged development within the project
area over the total life of the project consistent with approvals granted
by the Queensland Government.
Note: Condition 88 requires notification of commencement o f major stages of gas field
development.
56. The proponent may only have, own, hold, take, or otherwise utilise sufficient
CSG water as is required to undertake the approved activities within the
approved project area.
57. The Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3 CSG WMMP as approved by the Minister
in writing acting on advice of an expert panel and in accordance with the
timing requirements under these conditions must be implemented.
Note: The Queensland Coordinator-General also requires surface water and groundwater
monitoring and management. The proponent may incorporate requirements
meet both Queensland and Commonwealth requirements.
into
plans
that
Revisions of Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3 CSG WMMP
58. Consistent with an adaptive management approach the Stage 3 CSG WMMP
must be reviewed and updated for each new stage of gas field development:
to take into account of major updates to the Regional Groundwater Model;
and to address findings of Cumulative Impact Assessment Reports required
by the Queensland Government and these conditions of this approval.
59. A reviewed and updated Stage 3 CSG WMMP must be submitted to the
Minister for written approval. Commencement of each new stage of gas field
development must not occur without approval. The proponent may undertake
activities that are critical to commencement that are associated with mobilisation
of plant and equipment, materials, machinery and personnel prior to the start of
development only if such activities will have no adverse impact on MNES,
and only if the proponent has notified the Department in writing before the
activity is undertaken. The approved CSG WMMP must be implemented for the
relevant gas field area.
60. The Minister may, through a request in writing, require that the Stage 1,
Stage 2 or Stage 3 CSG WMMP be revised or amended, which may
include requirements for amendments to address independent
expert
advice. Any such request must be acted on within the timeframe specified.
Note: The Minister may throughout the project life seek advice from experts, or an expert
panel. As a consequence specific matters identified through such advice may need to be
addressed in the Plan. Where such advice is sought the proponent would be provided with
opportunity to submit information and respond to the specific matters identified, in order to
ensure the Plan is based on the best available information. Review requirements will
facilitate adaptive management, alignment with Queensland Government approval
requirements, and account for potential cumulative impacts as new scientific information
becomes available over the life of the project.
60A.The proponent must treat all coal seam gas water as required under
this approval before the coal seam gas water associated with the
approved action enters the following pipelines:
a. The Kenya to Chinchilla Pipeline referred to the Department (EPC
2011/6000)
b. The Woleebee Creek to Glebe Weir pipeline (EPBC 2011/6181)
Once the coal seam gas water has been treated as required under this approval
and has entered the pipelines specified above, conditions 43-60 will no
longer apply to that water.
Regional groundwater model
61. To avoid or minimise direct or indirect adverse impacts on MNES, the
proponent must:
a.
develop a regional scale, multi-layer, transient groundwater flow
model of the cumulative effects of multiple CSG developments;
b.
develop and implement an adaptive management framework,
applicable at both the project scale and regional-scale, that includes
monitoring and mitigation approaches to assess and manage the
impacts of CSG developments, which takes into account the
groundwater model of cumulative impacts required under (a); and
c.
contribute data as requested over the life of the Project to inform a
Basin- scale multi-layer, transient groundwater flow model of the
cumulative effects of multiple CSG developments in the Surat and
Bowen Basins.
Note 1: In the absence of sufficient evidence to characterise and quantify potential impacts at the
regional scale, this condition requires the model to be developed as an early warning system,
informed by any other regional cumulative hydrological modelling, such that any hydrological
changes can be identified at an early stage and appropriate, effective remedial actions
implemented before irreversible environmental adverse impacts on MNES.
Note 2: Condition 9, Part 2, Appendix 2 of the Queensland Coordinator-General's report of 24
June 2010, provides for the proponent to 'provide a regional groundwater model.
Note 3: The Minister may throughout the project life seek advice from the Department or additional
advice from independent experts, or an expert panel. As a consequence specific matters identified
through the advice may need to be addressed in the Model. Where such advice is sought the
proponent would be provided with the opportunity to provide information and respond to specific
matters in order to ensure the Model is based on the best available information and advice.
62. The model required under condition 61 (a) must:
a.
use the best hydrostratigraphic and hydrogeological information
available at the time, to identify the likely cumulative impacts of
multiple CSG developments across the Surat and Bowen Basins;
b.
detail all data relating to the hydraulic connectivity between aquifers
and aquitards used to substantiate the model parameterisation;
c.
be calibrated against measured piezometer responses in areas
where CSG development has commenced;
d.
in relation to the reporting of model outputs - conform to the
recommendation
of the former Murray Darling Basin
s
Commission
Groundwater Modelling Guidelines;
e.
include:
i.
ii.
recharge versus extraction volumes for those aquifers;
iii.
details of justification for and assumptions regarding aquifer
seal integrity (i.e. thickness and distribution of aquitards);
iv.
quantification of hydraulic connectivity between different units
(aquifers and aquitards) through drill stem and pump testing;
and
v.
f.
water balances for the major aquifers affected by the CSG
operations including the expected timeframe of any changes
in water balance and pressure;
quantification of the impacts of reinjection and other
groundwater repressurisation techniques on aquifer water
balances.
reporting of
provide for adaptive monitoring, through six-monthly
monitoring results and new data, and annual updates of numerical
simulation models and re-interpretation
of results to relevant
Queensland Government and Commonwealth agencies.
63. The model required under condition 61 (a) must be provided at the same
time it is provided to fulfil requirements of the Queensland Government.
64. The proponent must seek approval of the Department if the requirement for a
model under condition 61 (a) is to be satisfied by the proponent's contribution to
a regional groundwater model developed by the Queensland Water
Commission (or its successor agency), as agreed between the proponent and
the Commission.
Note: Where the proponent is conditioned (here or elsewhere under the approval) to address a matter that may be most efficiently
managed by another party, whether another CSG proponent or a Queensland Government agency, the proponent may discharge
their responsibility under the condition by contributing financially and cooperating with other parties to meet the condition
i.e. to develop a single representative regional model and/or to provided a single report from one or more proponents.
24 Groundwater assessment, mitigation and monitoring
65. The proponent must provide to the Minister a copy of the groundwater
assessment required under condition 9 ('Groundwater assessment, mitigation
and monitoring'), Part 2, Appendix 2 of conditions imposed by the
Queensland Coordinator-General in his report dated 24 June 2010. In
addition, as part of a staged process of adaptive management of CSG
development, the proponent must also provide the following in relation to
subsidence:
a.
baseline and ongoing geodetic monitoring programs to quantify
deformation at the land surface within the proponent's tenures. This
should link from the tenement scale to the wider region across which
groundwater extraction activities are occurring and any relevant regional
program of monitoring;
b.
modelling to estimate the potential hydrological implications of the
predicted surface and subsurface deformation; and
c.
measures for linking surface and sub-surface deformation arising
activities.
25 from CSG
66. When requested by the Department, the proponent must provide to the
Department all geodetic monitoring data and related information from the
program. This data must be provided within 30 days of request, or in a
timeframe agreed to by the Department in writing.
67. Any program required under condition 65 must be submitted to the Minister
for approval with a proposed implementation schedule. The approved program
must be implemented in a timeframe specified by the Minister.
Springs assessment, mitigation and monitoring
68. As a precautionary approach, the proponent must within 9 months of
approval, or such other timeframe specified in writing by the Minister, survey
for, reconfirm, and notify the Minister of the presence or absence of any
springs proximal to the project area and within 100 kilometres of modelled
limits of aquifer draw-down. The survey:
a.
must include the Dawson River 8 springs north of Taroom; the Cockatoo
Creek springs east of Taroom; and the Scott's Creek springs northeast of
Roma; and
b.
may with the written approval of the Minister comprise the proponent's
contribution to a springs survey developed with input from the
Department and undertaken by the Queensland Water Commission (or its
successor agency).
Note 1: This survey may include use of remote sensing and may be aligned or combined with
similar survey requirements that are to be undertaken by other proponents or the Queensland
Water Commission. To avoid doubt, the survey must report on both discharge and recharge
springs, as EPBC listed species may occur in association with either.
Note 2: Surveys required under this condition may be undertaken by the_ proponent alone or in
partnership with other CSG proponents.
69. If presence of The community of native species dependant on natural
discharge of groundwater from the Great Artesian Basin, or listed threatened
species that are reliant on springs, is confirmed by a survey under condition
68, then the proponent must (unless the proponent is not able to gain access
to the spring, even with the assistance of relevant government agencies):
a.
for springs within the project area- within 1 month of survey completion
protect the ecological community and/or listed threatened species from gas
field development activities by establishing and maintaining a minimum 200
m employee/contractor exclusion zone from the relevant springs within
the
project area, unless such access is required in an
for
emergency,
environmental management, or for monitoring purposes;
Note: The Constraints Planning and Field Development Protocol will also apply.
within 12 months of the survey completion provide to the Minister a
management plan for all the relevant springs which includes:
b.
i:
a specific monitoring and remediation
program to protect the
ecological community and/or listed threatened species and to monitor
and address cumulative impacts within the project area and within
modelled limits of aquifer draw-down that may arise from CSG water
26 extraction, including identifying trigger levels and responses in the
case of changes to groundwater flow or quality in each relevant spring;
ii.
a baseline analysis of four 3-monthly samplings to determine the
seasonal presence or absence of all relevant springs, and to establish:
the existence, distribution and extent of listed threatened species; aquatic
macro-invertebrates; aquatic plants; water quality characteristics;
spring
physical parameters including seasonal variation, depth, and flow rate;
aquifer source including hydrochemical and isotopic analysis, and
comparison of water levels with respect to source aquifer potentiometric
surface;
iii.
ongoing monitoring on a 6 monthly basis (to cover high and low rainfall
seasons) over the life of the project in the region relevant to each spring;
iv.
analysis and calibration of the monitoring results against the baseline
data (collected under (ii) of this condition) as the CSG water and gas
extraction occurs over the life of the project;
v.
threshold values (such as reporting or control line values for additional
investigation, more intensive management actions, make good, and cease
operations) at which management actions will be initiated to respond
escalating levels of impact and designed to protect The community of
native species dependent on the natural discharge of groundwater
from the Great Artesian Basin and listed threatened species in the case
of changes to groundwater pressure, flow, or water quality in GAB
springs;
vi.
specific mechanisms to avoid, minimise,
and manage
response actions that can be taken by the proponent where:
risks,
and
I. any threshold values for surface environmental values are
exceeded;
II. any threshold values .for aquifer drawdown, water quality change, or
aquifer contamination are exceeded;
Ill. subsidence or surface deformation occurs, particularly if it impacts
on surface or groundwater hydrology; and
IV. any unforeseen emergency discharges occur;
vii.
established best practice standards, policies and guidelines; and
viii.
performance measures, reporting to the Department, and publication of
reports on the internet.
Note: Individual species and ecological community management plans are also required in
accordance with condition 8. The management plans may be developed by the proponent
alone or in partnership with other CSG proponents.
70. Any management plan required under condition 69(b) must be submitted to
the Minister for consideration of approval including seeking expert advice from
an expert panel. The approved plan must be implemented within the
timeframe specified by the Minister. The approved plan must be published on
the internet within 20 business days of being approved by the Minister.
71. The results of the baseline analysis under condition 69(b) must be made
available to the Queensland Water Commission as part of the proponents'
obligations in respect of the regional groundwater model under condition
61 (a) and provided on request to the Department.
27 Notification of threshold breaches and response actions
72. Within 10 business days of the proponent identifying monitoring
outcomes
that indicate a risk of reduction in groundwater pressure or water quality, the
proponent must notify the Minister in writing of the trend and the proponent's
response action.
73. Within 10 days of a surface or groundwater threshold value (for example,
water quality, environmental value, pressure, head, volume, or flow) being
exceeded, the
proponent must advise the
Minister in writing of the
circumstances, the threshold exceeded, the immediate action taken by the
proponent, and proposed action to remedy the breach
and
avoid
a
subsequent breach.
74. Immediate action may include a range of measures including but not limited to
further monitoring and investigation, the ceasing of water I gas extraction and/or
water discharge or use in the area affected, or such other measures as are
appropriate, until investigations can be completed to determine the cause and
remedial action. The proponent's proposed response action must be notified to
the Minister in writing.
75. The Minister may direct in writing that the proponent cease water I gas
extraction and/or water discharge or use in the area affected, and if the
Minister is not satisfied that the action proposed or taken by the proponent will
remedy the situation, or make good any environmental loss, the Minister may
direct the proponent to implement alternative action at the expense of the
proponent.
Note: The proponent will be provided with a reasonable opportunity to comment on any such
direction before it is required to be implemented.
Notifications
and requirements
about construction,
management and environmental management plans
operation,
brine
76. The proponent must notify the Department in writing when developing or
reviewing construction,
operational,
groundwater,
CSG
water,
brine
management, salinity management, environmental management, or other
plans where the scope of the plans relates to potential direct, indirect or
cumulative adverse impacts on MNES, or involves management of MNES.
The proponent must in the notification indicate the relevant components of
such plans relating to MNES and their management, and the timeframe for
development and approval of the plans under Queensland Government
requirements.
77. Where the scope of the plans relates to potential adverse impact on MNES, or
involves management of MNES the plans must be submitted to the Minister for
approval of those components. Approved components of plans must be
implemented.
Note: Where efficiency will be enhanced
the proponent may also prepare and align
management plans required under these conditions with the requirements of the Queensland
Government as long as the relevant matters under the conditions of this approval are clearly
and adequately addressed.
28 Cumulative Impact Report
78. On the same date that an assessment of cumulative impacts is provided in
accordance with requirements imposed by the Queensland Government, or
such other timeframe specified in writing by the Minister, the proponent must
provide a copy of that report to the Minister.
79. In addition to meeting any requirements imposed by the Queensland
Government, the report on cumulative impacts provided to the Minister must
also address the following, in relation to potential adverse impacts on MNES:
a.
cumulative impacts relating to all listed species and listed ecological
communities within and outside project area, including The community of
native species dependant on natural discharge of groundwater
from the
Great Artesian Basin;
b.
any surface water and groundwater environmental values, including
groundwater pressures and groundwater hydrochemistry which, if altered,
may have an impact on listed species and ecological communities within
and outside project area;
Note: These requirements may also be included together with the detailed assessment of
cumulative impacts required under condition 1, Part 2, Appendix 2, of the Coordinator- General's
reported dated 24 June 2010.
80. Within 3 years of the date that the cumulative impact report is provided to the
Minister, or such other timeframe specified in writing by the Minister, the
proponent must review that cumulative assessment and the report in the light of
the most up-to-date information and the regional transient groundwater
model required under condition 61 (a). The proponent must provide a report on
the review to the Minister and at the same time publish the report on its
website.
Note: The assessment scope of the cumulative impact report is not limited to groundwater or
surface water impacts. These conditions provide that, if the Minister believes that it is necessary or
desirable for the better protection of a relevant controlling provision for the action, the Minister may
request the proponent to make,within a period specified by the Minister, revisions to a plan
approved under these conditions. The Minister may make such a request in the light of the
cumulative impacts assessment, or the review of the cumulative impacts assessment. Section
136(1)(b) of the EPBC Act additionally provides that the Minister may revoke, vary or add to a
condition of this approval if the action has a significant impact that was not identified in assessing
the action, and if the Minister relevantly believes it is necessary.
Decommissioning Plan
81. Within five years of the commencement of gas f i e l d d e v e l o p m e n t , th e
proponent must develop a Decommissioning Plan. The Plan must:
a.
require the progressive removal or reuse of infrastructure where gas field
operations cease during the project life;
b.
establish
management
practices
environmental disturbance;
c.
ensure MNES are not impacted by progressive decommissioning, or final
decommissioning of gas field infrastructure;
d.
define rehabilitation
actions
decommissioning including for:
for
29
and
the
safeguards
infrastructure
to
sites
minimise
following
i.
optimising habitat and habitat connectivity for MNES;
ii.
enhancing pre-construction environmental quality; and
iii.
ongoing management during rehabilitation.
82. The Decommissioning Plan must be submitted for the approval o f the
Minister. The approved Plan must be implemented.
Survey data
83. All survey data collected for the project must be collected and recorded so as to
conform to data standards notified from time to time by the Department.
When requested by the Department, the proponent must provide to the
Department all species and ecological survey data and
related
survey
information from ecological surveys undertaken for MNES. This survey data
must be provided within 30 days of request, or in a timeframe agreed to by
the Department in writing.
Publication of Protocol and Plans
84. The Protocol and all plans approved by the Minister under these conditions
must be published on the proponent's website within 30 business days of approval
by the Minister. ·
85. The Department may request the proponent to publish on the internet a plan in
a specified location or format, and with specified accompanying text. The
proponent must comply with any such request.
Notification of commencement
86. Within 20 business days of the commencement of the action, the proponent
must advise the Department in writing of the actual date of commencement.
87. If, at any time after five years from the date of this approval, the Minister
notifies the proponent in writing that the Minister is not satisfied that there has
been commencement of the action, the action must not commence without
the written agreement of the Minister.
88. The proponent must notify the Department in writing of the proposed dates for
each subsequent major stage of gas field development at least 40 business
days before their commencement, and within 20 business days notify actual
commencement dates, and within 20 business days of any major variations to
gas field development notify the variations.
30
Request for variation of plans by proponent
89. If the proponent wants to act other than in accordance with a plan approved
by the Minister under these conditions, the proponent must submit a revised
plan for the Minister's approval.
90. If the Minister approves the revised plan, then that plan must be implemented
instead of the plan originally approved.
91. Until the Minister has approved the revised plan, the proponent must continue to
implement the original plan.
Revisions to plans by the Minister
92. If the Minister believes that it is necessary or desirable for
the better
protection of a relevant controlling provision for the action, the Minister may
request the proponent to make, within a period specified by the Minister, specified
revisions to a plan approved under these conditions. Without limiting this
condition, the Minister may also make such a request following a study under
s.255AA of the Water Act 2007.
93. If the Minister makes a request for revision to a plan, the proponent must:
a.
comply with that request; and
b.
submit the revised plan to the Minister for approval within the period
specified in the request.
94. The proponent must implement the revised plan on approval of the Minister.
95. Until the Minister has approved the revised plan, the proponent must continue to
implement the original plan.
Minimum timeframes for consideration of plans
96. For any plan required to be approved by the Minister under these conditions,
the proponent must ensure the Minister is provided at least 20 business days
for review and consideration of the plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing
between the proponent and the Minister.
Compliance with State environmental and other authorities
97. The proponent must comply with all environmental authorisations issued by
the State, including conditions of an environmental authority issued under the
EP Act.
31 Provision of State plans
98. If a c o n d i t i o n o f a State a p p r o v a l r e q u i r e s t h e proponent to provide a plan then
th e proponent must:
provide the plan to the Department or Minister on
period specified in the request; and.
a.
request,
within
the
prepare and combine plans that meet both Queensland Government
requirements and the Commonwealth requirements under this approval
where this is efficient. In doing so the proponent must clearly identify the
respective responsibilities and how these are being addressed in relation to
these conditions.
b.
Timeframes
99. If these conditions require the proponent to provide something by a specified
time, a longer period may be specified in writing by the Minister.
Auditing
100. On the request of and within a period specified by the Department, the
proponent must ensure that:
a.
an independent audit of compliance with these conditions is conducted;
and
b.
an audit report, which addresses the audit criteria to the satisfaction of the
Department, is published on the Internet and submitted to the
Department.
101. Before the audit begins, the following must be approved by the Department:
a.
the independent auditor; and
b.
the audit criteria.
102. The audit report must include:
a.
b.
the components of the project being audited;
the conditions that were activated during the period covered by the audit;
c.
a compliance/non-compliance table;
d.
a description of the evidence to support audit findings of compliance or
non-compliance;
e.
f.
g.
recommendations on any non-compliance or other matter to improve
compliance;
a response by the proponent to the recommendations in the report (or, if
the proponent does not respond within 20 business days of a request to do
so by the auditor, a statement by the auditor to that effect);
certification by the independent auditor of the findings of the audit report.
32 103. The financial cost of the audit will be borne by the proponent
a.
b.
c.
implement any recommendations in the audit report, as directed in writing by
the Department after consultation with the proponent;
investigate any non-compliance identified in the audit report; and
if non-compliance is identified in the audit report – take action as soon as
practicable to ensure compliance with these conditions.
Note: The Department will discuss findings of audit reports with the proponent to ensure
compliance with conditions and before the issue of any directions.
105. If the audit report identifies any non-compliance with the conditions, within 20
business days after the audit report is submitted to the Department the proponent
must provide written advice to the Minister setting out the:
a.
actions taken by the proponent to ensure compliance with these conditions;
and
b.
actions taken to prevent a recurrence of any non-compliance,
or
implement any other recommendation to improve compliance, identified in
the audit report.
Note: Independent third party
auditing
may
include
audit
of the proponent's performance
against the requirements of any plan required under these conditions.
Reporting non-compliance
106. The proponent must, when first becoming aware of a non-compliance with
these conditions, or a plan required to be approved by the Minister under
these conditions:
a.
report the non-compliance and remedial action to the Department within
five business days;
b.
bring the matter into compliance within a reasonable time frame specified in
writing by the Department
Record-keeping
a.
maintain accurate records substantiating all activities associated with or
relevant to these conditions of approval, including measures taken
to
implement a plan approved under these conditions; and
b.
make those records available on request to the Department Such records
may be subject to audit by the Department or an independent auditor in
accordance with section 458 of the EPBC Act, or used to verify compliance
with these conditions.
Note: Audits or summaries of audits carried out under these conditions, or under section 458 of
the EPBC Act, may be posted on the Department's website. The results of such audits may also
be publicised through the general media.
33
Financial assurance
a.
provide the Minister with a financial assurance in the amount and form
required from time to time by the Minister for activities to which these
conditions apply; and
b.
review and maintain the amount of financial assurance based on
proponent reporting on compliance with these conditions, and any
auditing of the activities.
109. The financial assurance is to remain in force until the Minister is satisfied that no
claim is likely to be made on the assurance.
Note: The financial assurance may be used for rehabilitation of habitat and other purposes not
addressed adequately by the proponent during the life of the project.
Annual Environmental Return
11o. The proponent must produce an Annual Environmental Return which:
a.
b.
c.
d.
addresses compliance with these conditions;
records any unavoidable adverse impacts on MNES, mitigation measures
applied to avoid adverse impacts on MNES; and any rehabilitation work
undertaken in connection with any unavoidable adverse impact on MNES;
identifies all non-compliances with these conditions; and
identifies any amendments needed to plans to achieve compliance with
these conditions.
111. The proponent must publish the Annual Environmental Return on the Internet
within 20 business days of each anniversary date of this approval.
Note: In complying with this publication requirement, the proponent must ensure that it has
considered relevant confidentiality and intellectual property rights of third parties.
Dictionary
112.1In these conditions, unless otherwise indicated:
Brigalow means for the purposes of the application of the Constraints Planning
and Field Development Protocol the presence of the Brigalow (Acacia
harpophy/Ja dominant and co-dominant) ecological community includes Brigalow
regrowth that retains the species composition and structural elements typical of
that found in the undisturbed li s t e d regional ecosystems but does not include:
a.
b.
vegetation that has been comprehensively cleared (not just thinned)
within the last 15 years;
vegetation in which exotic perennial plants have more than 50% cover,
assessed in a minimum area of 0.5 ha (100m by 50 m); and
34
c.
individual patches of Brigalow that are smaller than 0.5 ha;
Clearance of native vegetation means the cutting down, felling, thinning,
logging, removing, killing, destroying, poisoning, ringbarking, uprooting or
burning of native vegetation;
Commencement means any physical disturbance including clearance of native
vegetation, new road work, and the establishment of well sites to develop the gas
field project area (the project area is specified in condition 1). Commencement does
not include minor physical disturbance necessary
to undertake preclearance
surveys to establish monitoring programs; or associated with the mobilisation of the
plant, equipment, materials, machinery and personnel prior to the start of gas field
development.
Conditions means these conditions attached to the approval of the action;
CSG means coal seam gas;
Department means the Australian Government department responsible for
administering Part 4 of the EPBC Act;
Environmental constraints class Zone 4a means habitat for listed threatened
species and migratory species and listed ecological communities as described
in management plans 'for these matters, and as identified through ecological field
surveys. It includes matters for which there is a disturbance limit specified in
Tables 2 and 3 under condition 25. For the purposes of these conditions,
environmental constraints class Zone 4a it does not include other constraints
identified by the proponent unless these relate to MNES;
Expert panel means an expert panel appointed by the Minister;
EP Act means Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qid);
EPBC Act means the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999;
Gas field development means all activities associated with the development of
the gas fields including (but not limited to) site clearance and site preparation;
development of exploration and production wells; development of water and gas
transmission pipelines; infrastructure access road construction; construction of
workers accommodation and office facilities; construction o f gas compression
stations; construction of pumping stations;
construction of water treatment
facilities; and construction of water storage dams;
High value regrowth for the purposes of these conditions means mature native
vegetation that hasn't been cleared since 31 December 1989.
Impact risk zone means the area within 200 metres from the perimeter of
class Zone 4A;
35
Linear infrastructure means linear infrastructure including (but not limited to)
gas and water gathering lines, low and high pressure gas and water pipelines,
roads and tracks, power lines and other service lines;
Listed means
those species, ecological communities or other identified
matters of environmental significance listed for protection under Part 3 of the
EPBCAct;
Minister means the Minister responsible for Chapter 4 of the EPBC Act, and
may include a delegate of the Minister under s.133 of the EPBC Act;
means matters of national environmental significance,
relevant matters protected under Part 3 of the EPBC Act;
MNES
being the
No impact zone means the area within 300 metres from the perimeter of
class Zone4A;
Non-linear infrastructure means infrastructure including (but not limited to)
exploration and production wells,
compressor
stations, regulated dams,
reverse osmosis plants, brine encapsulation facilities, workers camps, and
maintenance facilities;
includes
described);
Plan
a
report, study,
protocol, program, or strategy
(however
Production means extraction of coal seam gas or associated water other
than for exploration purposes;
Proponent means the holder of the approval to which these conditions relate,
and includes any person acting on behalf of the proponent;
Referral means a referral under the EPBC Act including any amendment of
the referral.
Regulatory agency means agencies administering the EPBC Act and the EP
Act (Qid);
Remnant vegetation for the purposes of these conditions means vegetation
that can meet the following:
a. 50% of the predominant canopy cover that would exist if the vegetation
community were undisturbed; and
b. 70% of the height of the predominant canopy that would exist if the
vegetation community were undisturbed; and
c. Composed of the same floristic species that would exist if the vegetation
community were undisturbed.
Trunkline rights of way means the linear construction footprint required to
install gas and water trunklines, underground 33 kV power lines, above ground
33 kV power lines, fibre optic cable and gas and water gathering lines. Trunkline
rights of way may contain between one and ten gas and water
36
trunklines, between one and ten power lines, between one and ten fibre optic
cables and between one and up to twelve gathering lines running in parallel;
Upstream Infrastructure Corridor (UIC) is a linear corridor linking the Ruby CPP,
Jordan CPP, Kenya WTP, Bellevue CPP and the Condamine Power Station. The
UIC will contain multiple linear infrastructure items running in parallel, including
gas trunklines, water trunklines, gas gathering lines, water gathering line, water
distribution pipelines, above ground 132 kV power lines, above ground 33 kV
power lines, below ground 33 kV power lines and fibre optic cable. The UIC
and the infrastructure to be contained within the UIC along various sections of
the UIC are shown in Figure 2 to these conditions;
Water distribution pipelines means pipeline used to transfer raw or treated
water to a user of that water or to transfer brine between facilities that
manage brine;
Water gathering lines means pipelines used to transfer water between wells
andregional storage ponds (RSPs);
Water trunklines means pipelines used to transfer water between regional
storage ponds and water treatment plants.
113. Unless otherwise indicated, words in these conditions have the same meaning as
in (in the following order of priority):
a.
the EPBC Act; and
b.
the EP Act.
114. Unless the contrary is indicated, in these conditions:
a.
b.
words in the singular number include the plural and words in the plural
number include the singular; and
condition headings are inserted for convenient reference only and have no
effect in limiting or extending the language of the condition to which they
refer.
37
Figure 1 — Project area - gas field tenements
Tal-a
<i ·...... t PlJ'<fi1
c=J
c=J
t::> $ ,(1 0 C T
G asF ield5 -A m lm li!yta P cl
{ .ili>
A
'lll'W ;
! l! A I ; s ( r ii& J : .
aM
w g ,.:m tl!;
A ;E r4 y
G asf - P etroleum Lea A ppli:c.rnon
N
-
38
Figure 2 -Infrastructure corridor widths for the Upstream Infrastructure Corridor
39
VARIATION TO CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO APPROVAL
To develop, construct, operate and decommission the Coal Seam Gas Field
component of the Queensland Curtis LNG Project, Including expansion of the
QGC operated coal seam gas fields In the Surat Basin as described In referral
EPBC 2008/4398.
This decision to vary conditions of approval is made under section 143 of the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) .
Approved action
Person to whom the
approval Is granted
Queensland Gas Company Ltd (QGC) and
BG International Limited (BG)
ABN: 089 642 553 (QGC)
ABN: 72 114 818 825 (BG)
Approved action
To develop,construct, operate and decommission the coal
seam gas field component of the Queensland Curtis LNG
Project, including expansion of the QGC operated coal seam
gas fields in the Surat Basin, to supply gas for the
Queensland Curtis LNG Project to the proposed Queensland
Curtis LNG Plant located on Curtis Island:
• as described in the proponent's referral received under
the EPBC Act on 18 August 2008; and
• as described in the proponent's Environmental Impact
Statement and Supplementary Environmental Impact
Statement.
Variation
Variation of conditions of
approval
The variation is:
Delete conditions 45, 49, 52, 54, 57,58, 59, 60 (excl. 60A) attached
to the approval dated 22 October 2010 and substitute the conditions
specified below.
Add conditions 53A, 538 and 53C specified below.
Date of effect
This variation has effect on the date the instrument is signed
Person authorised to make decision
Name and position
Signature
b•te ol deol•lon a/
December 2012 Conditions attached to the approval
45. To avoid doubt, monitoring and risk management requirements in the Stage 1
Coal Seam Gas Water Monitoring and Management Plan (Stage 1 CSG
WMMP), the Stage 2 Coal Seam Gas Water Monitoring and Management Plan
(Stage 2 CSG WMMP) and Stage 3 Coal Seam Gas Water Monitoring and
Management Plan (Stage 3 CSG WMMP) (outlined below) will continue to apply
to any aquifer which the proponent has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
Minister, on the advice of the expert panel, has negligible hydraulic connectivity
to other aquifers.
49. Within 6 months from the date of the project approval, the proponent must
submit for the approval of the Minister a Stage 1 Coal Seam Gas Water
Monitoring and Management Plan (Stage 1 CSG WMMP) which includes at
least:
a.
groundwater drawdown limits for each targeted aquifer;
b.
c.
a program and schedule for field piloting of aquifer reinjection of treated
CSG water and other groundwater repressurisation techniques;
d.
early warning
approached ;
indicators
where
drawdown
thresho lds
are
being
Hydraulic fracturing
e.
the estimated number and the spatial distribution of boreholes where
hydraulic fracturing may be necessary , an annual review of the estimate ,
and recording of actual use;
f.
Surface water monitoring and management
g.
an ongoing water quality and quantity surface water monitoring plan
that includes at least:
i.
identification of the surface and aquatic systems to be monitored and
their environmental values, water quality , and environmental
characteristics, and the rationale for selection;
ii.
the number and locations of monitoring sites upstream and downstream
of proposed discharge of CSG water (whether treated water , amended
water or raw water) , including test and reference sites upstream and
downstream and before and after any proposed impacts;
iii.
iv .
the freque ncy of the monitoring and rationale for the frequency ;
baseline data for each monitoring site for comparison of monitoring
2
v.
the approach to be taken to analyse the results including the methods to
determine trends to indicate potential impacts;
vi.
threshold values that protect relevant MNES (such as reporting or
investigation , more intensive
control line values for additional
management action, make good, and cease operations) at which
management actions will be initiated to respond to escalating levels of
risk
and
designed
to
protect
water
quality
and
the
associated
environmental values of surface and aquatic systems ;
vii.
water treatment
standards;
viii.
and
amendment
methods
and
water storage locations and volumes including any storage and volumes
required to pilot or implement reinjection or other groundwater
repressurisation techniques;
ix.
water use or disposal options and methods (whether for beneficial use or
not) including frequency , volumes , quality and environmental values
documented for each receiving environment;
x.
xi.
brine storage
management;
locations
and
volumes
, and
brine
crystal
waste
xii.
emergency water discharges, their volumes and quality;
Response actions
h.
i.
ii.
threshold values for surface water quality and water environmental
values specified in the CSG WMMP are exceeded; and
Reporting
i.
publication of reports on the internet.
to
the
Department,
and
Note: A key objective of the CSG WMMP groundwate r components is to maintain or restore
aquifer pressure. as affected by CSG production, to levels that avoid risk of adverse impact on
MNES.
52. In addition to the matters in the Stage 1 CSG WMMP , the Stage 2 CSG WMMP
must also include:
a.
an ongoing CSG water treatment program to ensure that any water to be
used for re-inject ion, or used for other groundwater repressurisation
options , is treated at least equal to the water quality of the receiving
groundwater system or environment;
b.
the method, data and the evidentiary standards necessary to support a
conclusion that an aquifer from which CSG water is being extracted is not
hydraulically connected to other aquifers;
c.
a groundwater quality and quantity monitoring plan to monitor the aquifers
underlying the project area using a statistically and hydrogeologically valid
, best practice bore monitoring network across the project area, and at
i.
the number and locations of monitoring bores and their flow, pressure,
head, and water quality characteristics;
ii.
iii.
the aquifers to be monitored and the rationale for selection;
iv.
v.
vi.
groundwater drawdown threshold values and groundwater quality
threshold values for each aquifer (based on regional groundwater
modelling endorsed by the Minister) at which management actions (such
as reporting or control line values for additional investigation, more
intensive management action, make good, and cease operations) will be
initiated to respond to escalating levels of risk, including increasing
levels of drawdown, contamination of groundwater, or subsidence;
vii.
references to standards and relevant policies and guidelines ;
viii.
[removed
WMMP]
ix.
to
Stage
3
performance measures, annual reporting to the
publication of reports on the internet;
Department, and
Note 1: Threshold values will be identified in the plan and during the life of the approval
and related conditions may be varied by the Minister on advice from an expert panel to
reflect the best available data and scientific information.
Note 2: For clarity, the monitor ing required under this condition may be undertaken
Response actions
d.
i.
I.
threshold
values for surface
environmental values specified
exceeded;
water quality and water
in the CSG WMMP are
11.
Ill.
IV.
ii.
regional-scale groundwater model and a hydrochemical modelapproved by the Minister.
53A. Within 33 months from the date of the approval of the action the proponent
Monitoring and Management Plan (Stage 3 CSG WMMP). The proponent
must allow at least a further 3 months for the Minister's consideration of
approval of the Stage 3 CSG WMMP including seeking advice from an expert
panel.
538. In addition to the matters in the Stage 1 CSG WMMP and the Stage 2 CSG
WMMP , the Stage 3 CSG WMMP must also include:
a. a program and schedule for aquifer connectivity studies and monitoring of
relevant aquifers to determine hydraulic connectivity;
b. details of constit uent components of any hydraulic fracturing agents
and any other reinjected fluid(s) , and their toxicity as individual
substances and as total effluent toxicity and ecotoxicity , based on
methods outlined in the National Water Quality Management Strategy;
c. mechanisms to avoid, minimise and manage risk of adverse impacts and
response actions and timeframes that can be taken by the proponent if
there are any unforeseen emergency discharges;
d. a groundwater quality and quantity monitoring plan to monitor the aquifers
underlying the project area using a statistically and hydrogeologically
valid , best practice bore monitoring network across the project area, and at
least;
i. baseline data for each monitoring site for comparison of monitoring
ii. the approach to be taken to analyse the results including the methods to
determine trends to indicate potential impacts; and
iii. mechanisms to monitor, avoid, minimise, manage,and respond to risks.
jointly with others .
e. an exceedence response plan that includes:
i. mechanisms to avoid, minimise and manage risk of adverse impacts and
1. threshold values specified in the CSG WMMP for aquifer drawdown
or groundwater contamination are exceeded ;
11.
subsidence or surface deformation occurs which impacts on surface
or groundwater hydrology;
111. there are any unforeseen emergency discharges ; and
ii. a program and timetable for repressurisation using re-injection of CSG
water from hydraulically connected aquifers back into appropriate
permeable aquifers and for other groundwater repressurisation options
to re-establish pressure levels and water qualities to the satisfaction of
the Minister on the advice of an expert panel, in conjunction with
appropriate measures to forecast and proactively manage any shortNote:The design of these groundwater repressurisation activities must be informed by a
regional-scale groundwater model and a hydrochemical modelapproved by the Minister.
5
Implementation of Stage 3 CSG WMMP
53C. The proponent must implement the approved Stage 3 CSG WMMP, no later
than 38 months from the date of the project approval.
54.
Three months before commencement of each subsequent major Stage of the
proponent's gas field development the proponent must submit a revised
Stage 3 CSG WMMP for the consideration of approval of the Minister
including seeking the advice of an expert panel.
57.
The Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3 CSG WMMP as approved by the Minister in
writing acting on advice of an expert panel and in accordance with the timing
requirements under these conditions must be implemented .
Note: The Queensland Coordinator-General also requires surface water and groundwater
monitoring and management. The proponent may incorporate requirements into plans that
meet both Queensland and Commonwealth requirements.
Revisions of Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3 CSG WMMP
58.
Consistent with an adaptive management approach the Stage 3 CSG WMMP
must be reviewed and updated for each new Stage of gas field development:
to take into account of major updates to the Regional Groundwater Model; and
to address findings of Cumulative Impact Assessment Reports required by the
Queensland Government and these conditions of this approval.
59.
A reviewed and updated Stage 3 CSG WMMP must be submitted to the
Minister for written approval. Commencement of each new Stage of gas field
development must not occur without approval. The proponent may undertake
activit ies that are critical to commencement that are associated with
mobilisation of plant and equipment, materials, machinery and personnel prior
to the start of development only if such activities will have no adverse impact
on MNES, and only if the proponent has notified the Department in writing
before the activity is undertaken. The approved CSG WMMP must be
implemented for the relevant gas field area.
60.
The Minister may,through a request in writing , require that the Stage 1, Stage
2 or Stage 3 CSG WMMP be revised or amended, which may include
requirements for amendments to address independent expert advice. Any
such request must be acted on within the timeframe specified.
Note: The Minister may throughout the project life seek advice from experts, or an expert panel.
As a consequence specific matters identified through such advice may need to be addressed in
the Plan. Where such advice is sought the proponent would be provided with opportunity to
submit information and respond to the specific matters identified, in order to ensure the Plan is
based on the best available information. Review requirements will facilitate adaptive
management , alignment with Queensland Government approval requirements, and account for
potentialcumulative impacts as new scientific informat ion becomes available over the life of the
project.
Department of Sustain ability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
VARIATION TO CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO APPROVAL
To develop, construct, operate and decommission the Coal Seam Gas Field component of
the Queensland Curtis LNG Project, including expansion of the QGC operated coal seam
gas fields in the Surat Basin as described in referral EPBC 2008/4398.
This decision to vary a condition of approval is made under section 143 of the Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
Proposed
action
Person to whom the
approval is granted
Proposed action
Queensland Gas Company Ltd (QGC)
BG International Limited (BG)
ABN: 089 642 553 and (QGC)
ABN: 72 114 818 825 (BC)
To develop, construct,operate and decommission the coal seam gas field
component of the Queensland Curtis LNG Project, including expansion of
, the QGC operated coal seam gas fields in the Surat Basin, to supply gas
for the Queensland Curtis LNG Project to the proposed Queensland Curtis
LNG Plant located on Curtis Island:
•
as described in the proponent's referral received under the EPBC Act
on 18 August 2008; and
•
as described in the proponent's Environmental Impact Statement and
Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement.
Variation
Variation of conditions
of approval
The variation is to:
Insert condition 60A of the approval dated 22 October 2010 as specified
below.
Date of effect
This variation has effect from the date this instrument is signed.
Person authorised
Name and position
to make decision
Shane Gaddes
A/g Assistant Secretary
Compliance and Enforcement Branch
Signature
Date of decision
2- November 2012
Condition attached to the approval:
60A. The proponent must treat all coal seam gas water as required under this approval before the coal
seam gas water associated with the approved action enters the following pipelines:
a. The Kenya to Chinchilla Pipeline referred to the Department (EPC 2011/6000)
b. The Woleebee Creek to Glebe Weir pipeline (EPBC 2011/6181)
Once the coal seam gas water has been treated as required under this approval and has entered
the pipelines specified above, conditions 43-60 will no longer apply to that water .
APPENDIX 4.
RESUMES OF AUTHORS UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED
QGC 2015
Revision 5
Curriculum Vitae
STEVE CUPITT
Senior Ecologist / Senior Environmental Scientist
Toowoomba, Queensland
Associate Degree of Applied Science (Distinction), University of QLD, 3 years
AREAS OF EXPERTISE:
Steve is an ecologist with over 18 years’ experience in linear / broad scale flora & fauna surveys, weed
surveys / mapping and environmental surveys in the Galilee, Bowen and Surat Basin, Desert Uplands,
Southern Gulf and NSW north-west slopes . During this time, he has worked with over 1,200 landholders
in the field, located and implemented environmental offsets in NSW and Queensland, been Regional and
State Coordinator for Natural Heritage Trust grants, and manager of the Greening Australia West Region.
He has consulted for a number of organisations on terrestrial ecology, tree management/arborist,
wetlands, weed quantification, management and control recommendations, riparian management and
rehabilitation. Steve has worked closely with State and Commonwealth Departments on a number of
programs, including managing the State Governments Vegetation Incentives Program and the
Commonwealths Regional Support Contract.
Steve was Greening Australia West Region manager for 7 years, Greening Australia State Coordinator for
devolved grants, Environment Director of Southern Gulf Catchments for 3 years, a member of the
Condamine Catchment Management Association for 5 years, was on the Delbessie Leasehold Land
Advisory Committee during development of the leasehold land management guidelines, is a member of
the biodiversity offsets committee, is a member of Desert Channels Regional Body, was a member of the
Rangelands Grazing Advisory Committee for UQ Gatton and a technical member of the advisory
committee for BAMM and AQUABAMM.
As a result of Steve’s understanding of rural issues and land values and association with landholders
throughout QLD, Steve developed an offset calculator to assist landholders and clients with costs of
ongoing management and rehabilitation of degraded sites damaged by overgrazing, floods, fires and
land-clearing.
SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE WHILST WORKING FOR RPS GROUP AND AMEC:
Rehabilitation and Monitoring
QGC LNG Species Management Plans - Development of a quick assessment tool for determining the
likelihood of occurrence in any given location for significant flora/ fauna species.
Origin Energy - Re-vegetation and tree planting project in Spring Gully.
Braemar Power Station – Re-vegetation and rehabilitation on sites previously cleared for development.
Peabody Wilkie Creek Mine – Conducted monitoring programs to measure the success/failure of
rehabilitation.
rpsgroup.com.au
Curriculum Vitae
- CONTINUED -
Fowks Design and Construction – planned, selected plant species, implemented and monitored
rehabilitation on a 5 ha site north of Toowoomba.
Offsets
Eastern Star Gas (NSW) - Steve located and secured environmental offsets for ESG (now Santos) in the
north-west slopes of NSW.
Dysart Coal – Using a combination of Steve’s own landholder land-bank and the Galilee/Bowen offset
strategy, Steve located offset sites and negotiated with landholders to sign a document indicating their
interest in offsets. This provided Dysart with over 5,000 ha of potential offset sites in preparation for when
offsets will be required.
Logan Water Alliance - The project required an offset as a result of linear infrastructure development.
Steve located a suitable offset area and secured the area to the satisfaction of State and Commonwealth
Government.
Queensland Curtis LNG Project - The QCLNG project required extensive linear and well-pad offsets
under State and Commonwealth legislation. Steve was involved in assessment of the project’s current and
future offset requirements, preparation of offset budgets and a landscape scale assessment to determine
the feasibility of securing offsets as well as the early identification of priority offset sites associated with
the Curtis Island Export Facility. Steve has also managed the landholder engagement process and
undertook extensive liaison with rural landholders. He developed offset management plans with
associated costs and prepared proposals to respective Government Departments.
Origin APLNG Project - Steve was a member of the team involved in offset identification, assessments
and landholder engagement as a result of impacts on remnant vegetation on well pads and linear
infrastructure (ie. gathering, access, trunklines and the main-line.
Origin APLNG Project (offset surveys) – Steve was a member of the team conducting flora and fauna
surveys on five properties selected as likely offset properties. Steve conducted ecological condition and
bio-condition surveys to determine the suitability as the areas as offsets. Steve prepared a condition
report for the client and met with the State Government on a number of occasions to define offset scores.
Xstrata Coal - Identification of offset properties, landholder engagement, vegetation ground-truthing,
preliminary property reviews and Bio-Condition assessment.
Wiggins Island Coal Terminal – Steve identified offsets areas, negotiated with landholders, conducted
ecological assessments and liaised with Government Departments to secure suitable offsets.
Newstead Pipeline Offsets Strategy, APA Wallumbilla - Steve was responsible for assessing the
project’s offset requirements, preparing offset cost estimates and a landscape scale assessment to
determine the feasibility of securing offsets.
BMA Coal – Steve led a small team of ecologists to evaluate five BMA owned properties for suitability as
environmental offset areas. Each property had 30+ rapid assessments conducted to determine the
feasibility of securing offset sites on BMA owned land.
Cockatoo Coal Limited – Steve assisted in the development of an offset strategy for CCL and provided
extensive advice various offset options available to CCL.
Flora / Fauna Management
rpsgroup.com.au
Curriculum Vitae
- CONTINUED -
Origin APLNG Project - DEIS Mainline Survey: Steve was a member of a team of ecologists involved in
the ecological survey of the linear LNG mainline for weeds, ecological values, habitat and riparian
attributes.
Origin APLNG Project Spring Gully – Steve led a team of ecologists for a survey of weeds, EVNT flora,
habitat and Regional Ecosystem ground truth on the Spring Gully tenement.
QGC LNG Project Surveys - Infrastructure and gas field development surveys conducting ecological
surveys for gas field development, linear infrastructure and compressor stations. This involved habitat
identification, weeds, EVNT, riparian management and regional ecosystem identification.
QGC LNG EVNT Species Quantification Surveys – A number of QGC properties were identified as
having a number of EVNT flora species. Steve devised a methodology to determine the number of species
on site and provided data to the DEHP and QLD Herbarium.
QGC LNG Species Management Plans - Development of a quick assessment tool for determining the
likelihood of occurrence in any given location for 10 significant fauna species for use by field ecologists
and contractors during linear operations and gas field development.
Origin APLNG Project – Steve was a member of the team conducting environmental seismic surveys in
the Dulwogan and Condabri fields for flora / fauna, weeds, habitat and significant ecological features.
Kevin’s Corner / Hancock Coal / Rail Corridor – Flora / fauna surveys north of Alpha were required to
locate specific EVNT flora / fauna species (ENVT), weeds, weed density, significant pasture weeds and / or
nuisance species on a proposed mine site and 9km of rail line. Steve led a team of 6 ecologists to conduct
linear and broad scale surveys over a three week timeframe.
Origin Energy - Re-vegetation and tree planting project in Spring Gully
Rothwell Retirement Village – Steve was a member of a small team conducting Bio-Condition and
Ecological Equivalence on coastal vegetation for a development and assessing an area for vegetation
offset suitability.
Thornlands – This project required marine vegetation assessments and a review of a marine offset area as
a result of a slipway development application. Steve and another ecologist reviewed both sites.
Arrow Energy – Provided surveys for weed species identified as Weeds of National Significance (WONS),
declared weeds, pasture and environmental weeds and weeds identified as being detrimental to livestock,
quantification and control measures. This was followed up by development of a weed management plan
and organising a weed control crew to control weeds on Arrows tenements.
Santos - Consulting on ground-truth Regional Ecosystems and rehabilitation of degraded sites.
Braemar Power and QGC - Weed Control on 200km Gas pipeline and Braemar Power Station
Toowoomba Regional Council Proposed Pipeline (Hampton) – Assessment of the Hampton Pipeline
for EVNT species, habitat trees and environmental significant issues.
Toowoomba Regional Council O’Mara Road Alignment – Assessment of O’Mara Road widening for
EVNT species, habitat trees and environmental significant issues.
rpsgroup.com.au
Curriculum Vitae
- CONTINUED -
Toowoomba Regional Council OBrien’s Road Alignment - Assessment of O’Brien’s Road for EVNT
species, habitat trees and environmental significant issues.
Toowoomba Regional Council Sewerage Treatment Works Expansion – Assessment of the Treatment
Work site for EVNT species, habitat trees and environmental significant issues.
Toowoomba Regional Council Road Widening for Airport Link - Assessment of the airport road for
EVNT species, habitat trees and environmental significant issues.
Greening Australia Native Plant Nursery - Managed the weed control team, Environmental Services
Unit and overall nursery operations.
Condamine Alliance - Consultant for wetland, riparian management and rehabilitation.
Greening Australia – Regional Manager of West Region for Rural Consultancy (9 full time and 3-10
casual staff), Environmental Services, Nursery, Weed Control Teams, Rehabilitation and Tree Planting. This
role included budget development, job/work estimating, business development and client negotiations.
Commonwealth Government - Regional Support Contract
Manager of Queensland Government’s Vegetation Incentives Program
Greening Australia - State and Regional Coordinator Devolved Grants with a permanent staff of 9 and
responsible for development of funding applications to secure ongoing work programs.
On Farm Conservation
Greening Australia - State Manager of Government Vegetation Incentives Program
Greening Australia - Field Officer with the On Farm Conservation Program
Greening Australia - Regional Coordinator of the On Farm Conservation Program
PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE:
Senior Environmental Scientist / Ecologist – RPS
(September 2012 - current)
Senior Ecologist – Unidel / AMEC
(3.5 years)
Manager West Region, Greening Australia Queensland
(7 years)
Regional/State Coordinator QLD Grants Program, Greening Australia Queensland
(6 years)
MEMBERSHIPS & ACHIEVEMENTS:
 Environment Director of Southern Gulf Catchments
 Advisory member to Desert Channels Regional Body.
 Member Biodiversity Offsets
 Member Consulting Professionals
rpsgroup.com.au
Curriculum Vitae
- CONTINUED -
 Member Environmental Professionals QLD
 Member Natural Environmental Management Professionals
 Member of the Condamine Catchment Management Association [Membership/achievement name –
Institute name]
 Accredited NSW Bio-Banker
 Accredited in QLD’s Vegetation Structure and Remnant Status under the VMA 1999
 Winner of the “QLD Bush-Care Nature Conservation Award” and finalist of the Commonwealth BushCare Award
 Accredited in QLD’s Vegetation Structure and Remnant Status under the VMA 1999
 Certificate 4 Assessments and Workplace Training
 RAQ31698 Certificate 3 Agriculture (production Horticulture)
 Developed an excel based model to calculate offset management costs and landholder compensation.
 Wrote Greening Australia’s Rural prospectus
 Wrote the “Monitoring Farm Flora and Fauna” manual
 Co-wrote “Managing Urban Reserves”.
 Co-wrote “Rehabilitating Mine Sites”.
Permits and Licences
 Level 1 and 2 chainsaw operation
 Fire level 1 and 2
 Shooters licence
 Training for operation of 4WD and quad bike
 Manual drivers licence including medium rigid up 13.8 tonnes, 38 seater bus and motorcycle
rpsgroup.com.au
Curriculum Vitae
DR LYNISE WEARNE
SENIOR ECOLOGIST
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (BOTANY/ECOLOGY), LA TROBE UNIVERSITY, 2006
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE HONOURS (BOTANY/ZOOLOGY), LA TROBE UNIVERSITY, 2000
AREAS OF EXPERTISE:
Lynise is a senior ecologist with 10 years experience across a wide range of industries and locations within both
government and private sectors, including natural resource management, energy, gas, mining and carbon farming.
The primary areas of expertise are in the fields of ecological and biodiversity monitoring, assessment and
management; development of vegetation monitoring and management plans; species distribution modelling and
spatial analysis. Lynise has extensive experience field experience in riparian and terrestrial systems across
numerous areas; including southern Australia (Victoria, Tasmania, New South Wales) and northern Australia (wet
and dry tropics). She also has expertise in Regional Ecosystem assessment, Biocondition assessment, GIS analysis
and environmental management. Lynise’s vast experience in the public and private sector has enabled her to
interact and work with a variety of stakeholders, including indigenous groups, local councils, landholders, state and
government agencies. Lynise is experienced at undertaking flora assessments on gas projects throughout the
Brigalow Belt bioregion.
SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE:
Energy & Resources
Pipeline Additional Disturbance Areas (Origin) Field/ Project management, Flora and fauna surveys,
Ecological constraints assessment, Regional Ecosystem classification, Threatened species surveys, Vegetation
mapping, Pre-clearance surveys, GIS analysis and reporting.
Dalwogan EVNT Offsets (Origin) Flora and fauna surveys, Ecological constraints assessment, Offsets
strategy and assessment for Threatened Ecological Communities and threatened species, Biocondition
assessment, GIS analysis and mapping, Project management.
Dalwogan 3D Seismic (Origin) Field/ Project management, Flora and fauna surveys, Ecological constraints
assessment, Regional Ecosystem classification, Threatened species surveys, Vegetation mapping, Pre-clearance
surveys, GIS analysis and reporting.
Condabri 3D Seismic (Origin) Field/ Project management, Flora and fauna surveys, Ecological constraints
assessment, Regional Ecosystem classification, Threatened species surveys, Vegetation mapping, Pre-clearance
surveys, GIS analysis and reporting.
GLNG Project (Bechtel) Vegetation surveys, Regional Ecosystem classification, Biocondition assessment,
Quaternary and Tertiary vegetation analysis.
Carbon Farming of Native Regrowth (Queensland Government) Vegetation survey of regrowth and
remnant Regional Ecosystems, threatened species distribution modelling and GIS analysis.
rpsgroup.com.au
Curriculum Vitae
- CONTINUED -
Urban Growth
Maddison Estate Southern EDL delineation (LM Arrowtown Pty Ltd) Assessment of ecologically
significant features within the Ecological Delineation Line; identification and assessment of tree species; GIS
analysis
Bahrs Scrub Offsets (Stockland Development Pty Limited) Flora and fauna surveys, Ecological
constraints assessment, Offsets strategy and assessment for Threatened Ecological Communities, threatened
species, remnant vegetation and large tree, GIS analysis and mapping. Reconfiguring a Lot.
Environment
Seedbanks of Weed Invaded Wetlands: Biodiversity and Restoration (CSIRO/DAFF) Project
management, including design, establishment, implementation and analysis of wetland seedbanks in northern
Australia. The effects of different management strategies and hydrological treatments were assessed and
recommendations made for restoration of weed invaded wetlands. The project involved extensive vegetation
mapping and floristic analysis and an understanding of germinable seedbanks.
English Broom (Cytisus scoparius) Adaptive Experimental Management Program (Parks Victoria)
– Project management including liaison with Parks Victoria authorities regarding development, design,
monitoring and analysis of an adaptive experimental program to examine best practice chemical for English
Broom following wildfires. Involved extensive floristic monitoring and analysis. The final report analysed the cost
and effectiveness of different management options, the off target impacts to vegetation, and made
recommendations for the continued management of the species.
Mungulla Wetland Management Strategy (CSIRO/Nywaigi Traditional Owners/DAFF) – Project
management (including liaison with indigenous landholders, scientists, local council), workshop facilitation and
incorporation of expert opinion/ indigenous values into a wetland management strategy. Development of
short/medium/long term planning options for recovery and restoration of the wetlands.
Ecology and biology of Hymenachne amplexicaulis (CSIRO/DAFF) – Project management of a large
cross divisional project involving communication and co-ordination of multiple stakeholders across New South
Wales, Northern Territory and Queensland. Involves extensive vegetation (phenology), soil seed bank sampling
and analysis; risk assessment of Hymenachne across multiple spatial scales and prioritisation of resources for
management.
Vegetation Mapping Kosciuszko National Park (Ecology Australia/NSW Government) – Rapid
assessment of vegetation communities within Kosciuszko National Park (alpine areas)
Weed Risk Assessment (Ecology Australia/ Victorian Government) – Targeted survey for Hieracium
aurantiacum/Hieracium pratense (Orange Hawkweed/ Yellow Hawkweed) Alpine National Park/ Falls Creek
Resort Management)
PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE:
Senior Ecologist – Carbon Accumulation Through Ecosystem Recovery (CATER)
Queensland Herbarium, Department of Environment and Resource Management
2011-2012
Research Fellow
CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems (Townsville)
2007-2011
Consultant
Victorian Government – Parks Victoria
2006
Post-Fire Monitoring Officer
rpsgroup.com.au
Curriculum Vitae
- CONTINUED -
Victorian Government – Parks Victoria
2004-2005
Consultant
Ecology Australia
2004
Lecturer and Practical Coordinator
La Trobe University
2002-2004
MEMBERSHIPS & ACHIEVEMENTS:
Member – Queensland Weed Society
Member - Ecological Society of Australia
Member – Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand
RECENT PUBLICATIONS:
Wearne, L.J., Ko, D., Hannan-Jones, M. and Calvert, M (2013). Potential distribution of an invasive plant species and
risk assessment: a case study of Hymenachne amplexicaulis in Australia. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. 19
Wearne, L.J., Clarkson, J., Grice, T., Van Klinken, R. and Vitelli, J (2010). The biology of Australian weeds.
Hymenachne amplexicaulis (Rudge) Nees (hymenachne). Plant Protection Quarterly.
rpsgroup.com.au
Dr David Dique
Partner (Biodiversity)
Impact Assessment and Planning
David is a Partner in ERMs Brisbane office and
manages more than 20 staff within the Impact
Assessment and Planning Team. David is also
the Managing Partner for Biodiversity in
Australia and New Zealand
Over the last 7 years, David has been involved
in leading projects throughout Queensland and
NSW. The project work during this period has
given David an excellent knowledge of the
resources sector, having led large infrastructure
and mine EISs, as well as delivering
environmental services and approvals advice to
the Oil and Gas sector. As a Partner, David is
responsible for the commercial aspects of
project delivery, contract management and
client liaison.
David is a Principal Ecologist that has held state
government and private consultancy roles for
20 years. From an academic and research
background, David has a detailed
understanding of principles that underpin
biodiversity research, survey and assessment,
management and conservation. This, coupled
with experience in biodiversity conservation
planning and policy development from state
government, has enabled David to provide high
level strategic approvals advice for major
projects in the energy and resources sector, both
for State and Federal approval processes.
David has recently provided technical oversight
for biodiversity matters for large mining and oil
and gas projects projects being undertaken
against the EPBC Act as well as IFC Principles
in NSW, Qld, south-east Asia and PNG. This
has included baseline surveys and impact
assessments, referral preparation, MNES
reporting, management plan preparation and
documentation against World Bank Guidelines
and IFC PS6.
The World’s Leading Sustainability Consultancy
Fields of Competence
• State and Federal strategic approvals
• EPBC referral and MNES reporting
• Ecological survey design and assessment
• Threatened species management planning
• Biodiversity impact assessment/EIA
• Biodiversity policy and legislation
• Project Management of ecological investigations
• Threatened Species habitat mapping
• Biodiversity Offsets
• Contract Management
• Major project delivery
• IFC and World Bank Biodiversity assessments
Education
• 2004 – Doctor of Philosophy: University of
Queensland, Brisbane Qld
• 1994 – Bachelor of Natural Resources (Hons 1):
UNE, Armidale NSW
Languages
• English
Key Industry Sectors
• Mining
• Oil and Gas
• Infrastructure
• Government
Key Projects
• Technical Lead for Biodiversity, ecological field
assessments, threatened species management
planning, Aurukun Bauxite Mine EIS, Cape York,
Chalco
• Expert witness – Alpha Coal Mine, Allens Linklaters
• Technical lead for Carmichael Coal mine EIS,
ecology and threatened species management and
strategic approvals advice for the mine and rail
component of the project under EPBC Act, central
Queensland, Adani
• Technical Lead for Biodiversity, Etheridge Irrigation
Project EIS, northern Qld, IFED
• Technical lead for Biodiversity for Alpha Coal
Project EIS, for a 500km proposed rail alignment,
strategic approvals and threatened species
management advice for the rail component of the
project under EPBC Act, GVK/Hancock
• Project Director for EPBC Act referral preparation,
provision of strategic approvals advice and
ecological assessment for 250km pipeline from
Moranbah to Alpha, Sunwater
• Technical Lead for Biodiversity for numerous
studies over five years, field surveys, impact
assessments, EPBC Referrals, management plans,
Abbot Point Coal Terminal, BMA, Adani,
GVK/Hancock, NQBO.
• Project Director for Etheridge Irrigation Project EIS,
northern Queensland, IFED
• Project Director for Teresa Coal Mine EIS and
strategic approvals advice, Linc Energy, Emerald
• Project Director for pre-clearance surveys and
threatened species surveys for 420km gas pipeline,
Santos GLNG, Roma to Gladstone.
• Project Director for ecological investigations for gas
field expansion (EMP) for Origin, APLNG, Roma
• Project Director for Wildlife Management Plan,
pipeline construction team, QGC, QCLNG, Roma.
• Project Director for Rehabilitation Management Plan
and analogue site assessment for 420km gas
pipeline, Santos GLNG, Roma to Gladstone
• Project Director for water mouse surveys (over 12
month period) and preparation of water mouse
management plan, Gladstone, QGC
• Project Director for pre-clearance surveys and
ecological investigations associated with gas field
expansion and related infrastructure for Origin,
APLNG, Roma
• Technical lead for Biodiversity for Drake Coal Mine
EIS, Collinsville
• Technical lead for Biodiversity for two windfarm
projects, EPBC Act referrals and regulator liaison in
NSW, Wind Prospects
• Technical Lead for Biodiversity for Jupiter
Windfarm EIS, ecological impact assessment and
02.02.15
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
threatened species management plans, southern
highlands of NSW, confidential
Technical lead for EPBC Act referral preparation and
regulator liaison, Bruce Highway upgrade, RMLS,
Kempsey
Project Director for analogue site identification,
assessment and preparation of rehabilitation plans
for gas fields and pipeline for QGC, QCLNG, Roma.
Project Director for Nature Conservation Act 1992
Vegetation Clearing permits and approvals, Santos,
GLNG, Roma
Technical Biodiversity Lead for Confidential Rail
assessment in South-east Qld for DFRC project, Port
of Brisbane
Project Director for SEQ Koala Habitat Mapping
Project extending from Noosa to the Gold Coast
covering 700,000 ha of bushland, DERM
Project Director for baseline marine surveys at
Abbott Point as part of collection of baseline
information for expansion of the Abbott Point Port
facility
Project Director for numerous flora and fauna
assessment projects for BCC
Project Director for SEQ Water Grid vegetation
offsets. Secured 1000 ha offset for 19 Development
Applications, WCRWP
Project Manager flora/fauna surveys and
preparation of REF for Town Water Supply pipelines
(50km) as part of the Western Corridor Recycled
Water Pipeline project
Management of flora/fauna surveys and technical
review of fauna assessments near Aurukun, Cape
York, as part of a large bauxite mining EIS project
Project Director/Manager for two Koala Survey and
Habitat Mapping projects across several local
government areas in south-east Queensland
(Caloundra, Pine Rivers, Caboolture, Redcliffe,
Redland)
Technical Biodiversity Lead for IFC PS6 assessment
for Gas field development in Sumatra, Sarulla.
Technical Biodiversity Lead for IFC PS6 assessment
for proposed gas pipeline in PNG Western Province,
Horizon Oil
Project Director for powerline easement offset
assessments and management planning, Powerlink,
Brisbane.
Project Manager for surveys of black-throated finch
populations in Townsville for a subdivision
development, Insight
Management of surveys for estimating abundance of
koalas at a proposed industrial development site at
Pimpama, Gold Coast, DTMR
Management of ecological assessment for proposed
Gap Creek Road and Redland Bay Rd upgrades,
south-east Queensland, BCC
DAVID DIQUE
Adam Marks
Senior Environmental Consultant,
Impact Assessment and Planning
Adam is a Senior Environmental Consultant with ERM,
Brisbane, Queensland. Adam currently has three years’
experience in the Coal Seam Gas (CSG) industry sector
and more than 10 years’ experience in the public sector
focusing on environmental management, assessment
and statutory protection.
Adam has contributed towards the development of
CSG Proponent Upstream Rehabilitation Plans, review
of habitat assessments for Project-wide development,
development of Upstream Significant Species
Management Plans and Flora Translocation
Management Plans as well as providing technical and
ecological advice on CSG Upstream Project
development.
Adam played a key role in the QCLNG Project
Technical Services team by providing policy and
statutory advice concerning environmental issues
relating to project approvals and project development.
In particular Adam was responsible for developing
QGC submissions relating to reforms in biodiversity
offsets and protected plant matters.
Adam has been involved in the development and
delivery of offsets for a major CSG Proponent, in
particular the Monte Christo Offset on Curtis Island
and offsets for upstream development.
Adam has also been involved in the assessment and
preparation of audit reports stemming from State and
Federal Government approvals, authorities,
management plans and permits including offsets,
rehabilitation as well as specific requirements around
the management of flora and fauna.
Prior to working in the resources sector, Adam was the
Operations Manager for Queensland Governments
Nature Refuges Program. Adam managed the field
based component of the Nature Refuges Program as
well as actively participating and leading strategic field
based Nature Refuge property assessments particularly
within Queensland’s Northern Gulf and Cape York
regions.
The world’s leading sustainability consultancy
Adam successfully assessed and negotiated one of
Queensland’s largest Nature Refuges at 238,000
hectares.
Fields of Competence
 Environmental assessment
 Queensland and Australian environmental
legislation and policy
 Rehabilitation planning, assessment and monitoring
 Terrestrial and marine offsets
 Flora and fauna management plans
 Environmental permitting
Education
 Currently undertaking a Masters of Environmental
Management with University Of Queensland,
Brisbane, Qld.
 Bachelor Degree of Science in Australian
Environmental Studies (majoring in Ecology and
Planning and Pollution and Health). Griffith
University, Brisbane, Qld. 1996
Languages
 English, native speaker
Key Industry Sectors
 Resources (Oil and Gas)
 Government (Natural Resource Management,
legislation and policy)
Honors and Awards
 2011 Australia Day Medallion
Publications
 Norton, M., Sharp, A., and Marks, A. (2011). An
evaluation of faecal pellet counts to index rockwallaby population size. Australian Mammalogy
33, 221-227.
 Sharp, A., Norton, M., and Marks, A. (2006).
Demography of a yellow-footed rock-wallaby
Petrogale xanthopus colony in the threatened New
South Wales sub-population. Australian
Mammalogy 28, 215-227. doi: 10.1071/AM06030
Key Projects

Environmental advisor responsible for the
development and delivery of the QCLNG
Philotheca sporadica Translocation Management
Plan. QGC 2013.

development of the QCLNG Monte Christo
Offset Plan. QGC, 2012 – 2014.

development of the QCLNG EPBC Act indirect
offset funding agreement. QGC 2013.

development of the QCLNG Surat North
Significant Species Management Plan Review.
QGC 2013.

Project manager responsible for the
development of the GLNG Third Party Audit
the EMP report for the Mainland GTP.

preparation of the QCLNG Water Mouse
habitat assessment report. QCLNG 2015

development of the QGC Koala Significant
Impact and Referral Assessment. QGC 2015

preparation of the QCLNG Significant Species
Management Plan for koala. QCLNG 2015

Environmental advisor supporting the
development of a Koala habitat offset
assessment for a private property in Southeast
Queensland. Earthtrade 2015

development of the QCLNG Significant Species
Management Plan review and update. QGC
2013.

review and development of the QCLNG
Significant Species Management Plan (SSMP)
review. QGC 2014

development of the QCLNG Project review of
the Queensland State Government Biodiversity
Offset Policy. QGC. 2012-2013.

preparation and development of the QCLNG
Protected Plant review. QGC 2014


development of the QCLNG Project Offset
Plan. QGC, 2014.
development of the QCLNG Regional
Ecosystem Vegetation Analysis Project. QGC.
2012

preparation of the QCLNG EPBC targeted
audit report. QGC, 2014.

preparation and development of the QCLNG
Upstream Rehabilitation Plan. QGC. 2012-2013.

Environmental advisor supporting the Permit
and Compliance Tracking (‘Pact’) system
testing and data migration, Queensland.
Australia. Origin Energy 2104

development of the Surat North Acreage
Development Offset Plan. QGC 2014
MARCH 2015
ADAM MARKS

299 7.5.7 MEROPS ORNATUS (RAINBOW BEE

Transcription

Similar documents

Brochure - Habitat for Zoomanity A Life Science Webquest

2016 Hollywood Build Fact Sheet

The truth about… The truth about… habitats

Ron Reid Couchiching Conservancy

September 2007 - Laughing Rock Technology

Chamise Chaparral - Nature Bytes Video

construction safety man construction and safety manual

Frame Collection ``What is your flavor`

June 2007 - Laughing Rock Technology