Referral of proposed action
Project title: Arnot Creek Bridge upgrade
1 Summary of proposed action
NOTE: You must also attach a map/plan(s) and associated geographic information system (GIS) vector (shapefile) dataset
showing the location and approximate boundaries of the area in which the project is to occur. Maps in A4 size are
preferred. You must also attach a map(s)/plan(s) showing the location and boundaries of the project area in respect to any
features identified in 3.1 & 3.2, as well as the extent of any freehold, leasehold or other tenure identified in 3.3(i).
1.1
Short description
1.2
Latitude and longitude
Latitude and longitude details
are used to accurately map the
boundary of the proposed
action. If these coordinates are
inaccurate or insufficient it may
delay the processing of your
referral.
The project comprises replacement of an existing bridge and culvert at Arnot Creek, on the Bruce highway
approximately 12.77km north of Ingham. (Refer Figures 1-3) The existing bridge and the culvert on the
northern side of the bridge is damaged and is in need of urgent replacement for public safety. The existing
pavement width will be extended, and a temporary side track will need to be constructed on the eastern
side of the existing alignment. Existing 11Kv power lines will require temporary relocation. The total project
area is estimated at approximately 11,210 m2 (1.12ha). It is estimated that up to 3,315m2 (0.33ha) of
remnant vegetation will need to be cleared to provide the necessary minimum clearances from the side
track and power poles. The power poles will be restored to their existing location and the cleared areas will
be revegetated post-construction. The new bridge will incorporate a dry passage underpass for
cassowaries.
Latitude
location point
centre point
degrees
-18
Longitude
minutes
33
seconds
33.54
degrees
146
minutes
11
seconds
04.50
The Interactive Mapping Tool may provide assistance in determining the coordinates for your project area.
If the area is less than 5 hectares, provide the location as a single pair of latitude and longitude references. If the area
is greater than 5 hectares, provide bounding location points.
There should be no more than 50 sets of bounding location coordinate points per proposal area.
Bounding location coordinate points should be provided sequentially in either a clockwise or anticlockwise direction.
If the proposed action is linear (e.g. a road or pipeline), provide coordinates for each turning point.
Also attach the associated GIS-compliant file that delineates the proposed referral area. If the area is less than
5 hectares, please provide the location as a point layer. If greater than 5 hectares, please provide a polygon layer. If
the proposed action is linear (e.g. a road or pipeline) please provide a polyline layer (refer to GIS data supply
guidelines at Attachment A).
Do not use AMG coordinates.
1.3
Locality and property description
Provide a brief physical description of the property on which the proposed action will take place and the project
location (eg. proximity to major towns, or for off-shore projects, shortest distance to mainland).
The subject site is located where Arnot Creek is crossed by the Bruce Highway
approximately 12km north of Ingham, Queensland in the Hinchinbrook Regional Council
area.
The clearing is proposed for part of the following Lots:
 8/RP719840 (south east)
 1/RP732874 (north east)
 part of Arnot Creek watercourse – segment 39585 parcel 69
 part of the Bruce Highway road reserve – segment 39580 parcel 85
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 5 of 16
1.4
Size of the development
footprint or work area
(hectares)
The total size of the development footprint is 11,210 m2
(1.12ha), which includes the existing section of Bruce
Highway and a cleared road reserve. Actual area of
vegetation clearing amounts to approximately 0.33ha.
The balance of the work area is within the existing
Bruce Highway and associated slashed road reserve
1.5
Street address of the site
50950 Bruce Highway, Bemerside, Qld, 4850 (via Ingham).
1.6
Lot description
Describe the lot numbers and title description, if known.
The clearing is proposed for part of the following Lots:
• 8/RP719840 (south east)
• 1/RP732874 (north east)
• part of Arnot Creek watercourse – segment 39585 parcel 69
• part of the Bruce Highway road reserve – segment 39580 parcel 85
1.7
Local Government Area and Council contact (if known)
If the project is subject to local government planning approval, provide the name of the relevant council contact
officer.
Hinchinbrook Regional Council, not subject to local government planning approval
1.8
Time frame
Specify the time frame in which the action will be taken including the estimated start date of construction/operation.
April –December 2016
1.9
Alternatives to proposed
action
Were any feasible alternatives to
taking the proposed action
(including not taking the action)
considered but are not
proposed?
√
The following alternatives were considered:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Option 1 do nothing
Option 2 repair deck units of existing bridge
Option 3 replace superstructure and encase piles of existing
bridge
Option 4 replace entire bridge on existing alignment
Option 5 replace entire bridge on new alignment
Option 6 replace entire bridge on existing alignment with
raised deck level
These options are discussed in section 2.2 below
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
Alternative time frames etc
Does the proposed action
include alternative time frames,
locations or activities?
√
State assessment
Is the action subject to a state
or territory environmental
impact assessment?
√
Component of larger action
Is the proposed action a
component of a larger action?
√
Related actions/proposals
Is the proposed action related to
other actions or proposals in the
region (if known)?
√
1.14
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
No, work must be completed before the 2016-2017 wet season
Yes, you must also complete Section 2.3. For each alternative,
location, time frame, or activity identified, you must also complete
details in Sections 1.2-1.9, 2.4-2.7 and 3.3 (where relevant).
No
Yes, you must also complete Section 2.5
No
Yes, you must also complete Section 2.7
No
Yes, provide details:
No
Page 6 of 16
Australian Government
funding
Has the person proposing to
take the action received any
Australian Government grant
funding to undertake this
project?
1.15
Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park
Is the proposed action inside the
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park?
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
√
√
Yes. This project is being partially funded by the Federal
Government, via the Department of Infrastructure and Regional
Development (DIRD). These works form part of Queensland
Infrastructure Investment Program, receiving 80% funding from the
Australian Government, with the balance funded by the Queensland
Department of Transport and main Roads (TMR).
No
Yes, you must also complete Section 3.1 (h), 3.2 (e)
Page 7 of 16
2 Detailed description of proposed action
NOTE: It is important that the description is complete and includes all components and activities associated with the
action. If certain related components are not intended to be included within the scope of the referral, this should be clearly
explained in section 2.7.
2.1 Description of proposed action
This should be a detailed description outlining all activities and aspects of the proposed action and should reference figures
and/or attachments, as appropriate.
The proposed scope of works include:
• Remove existing culvert and bridge (and piles)
• Replace entire bridge (substructure and superstructure)
• Existing 20m span deck to be replaced with a 25m span deck
• Replace existing box culvert with a new culvert of identical dimensions
• Pavement transition (right hand side) at approaches to join the formation of the new bridge
• Side track to be constructed for use during the construction
• Pavement widening to incorporate a wide centre line
• Construction to be scheduled to avoid wet season
• Clearing of approximately 0.33ha remnant vegetation
• Temporary relocation of 11Kv powerlines
• Post construction revegetation and weed management
Figure 1 below shows the project location in the Hinchinbrook Shire, north Queensland.
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 8 of 16
Figure 1: Location of project area
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 9 of 16
2.2 Alternatives to taking the proposed action
This should be a detailed description outlining any feasible alternatives to taking the proposed action (including not taking
the action) that were considered but are not proposed (note, this is distinct from any proposed alternatives relating to
location, time frames, or activities – see section 2.3).
The following alternatives were considered:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Option
Option
Option
Option
Option
Option
1
2
3
4
5
6
do nothing
repair deck units on existing bridge
replace superstructure and encase existing piles
replace entire bridge on existing alignment
replace entire bridge on new alignment
replace entire bridge on existing alignment with raised deck level
The existing highway bridge over Arnot Creek is significantly deteriorated and is in need of urgent and
immediate replacement. The remaining life of the superstructure has been calculated as 1-2 years.
Substructure was also found to be significantly deteriorated. Attempted repairs to stressing bars identified
significant damage to the deck unit, and further tensioning of the replacement bars would likely lead to further
damage.
In consideration of the extent of deterioration, remaining lifespan, and the relative engineering, environmental
and operational risks, it was concluded that Option 4 was considered the most viable option.
2.3 Alternative locations, time frames or activities that form part of the referred action
If you have identified that the proposed action includes alternative time frames, locations or activities (in section 1.10) you
must complete this section. Describe any alternatives related to the physical location of the action, time frames within
which the action is to be taken and alternative methods or activities for undertaking the action. For each alternative
location, time frame or activity identified, you must also complete (where relevant) the details in sections 1.2-1.9, 2.4-2.7,
3.3 and 4. Please note, if the action that you propose to take is determined to be a controlled action, any alternative
locations, time frames or activities that are identified here may be subject to environmental assessment and a decision on
whether to approve the alternative.
Options 1-3 were considered in the ‘Business case: Arnot Creek Bridge BIS #7490 Road 10N) and rejected for
the reasons described above.
Option 5 was to build a new bridge on a new alignment. Any alternative route would require clearing high
quality agricultural land, remnant vegetation and significantly greater timeframes and expense to build a new
section of highway. The timeframes would exceed the operational lifespan of the existing bridge.
It is proposed to undertake the works during the 2016 dry season to ensure minimum interruptions to works.
Constructing during the wet season (December-April) would require the side track being constructed to existing
levels of flood immunity, which would also require construction of a bridge.
2.4 Context, planning framework and state/local government requirements
Explain the context in which the action is proposed, including any relevant planning framework at the state and/or local
government level (e.g. within scope of a management plan, planning initiative or policy framework). Describe any
Commonwealth or state legislation or policies under which approvals are required or will be considered against.
The project does not trigger assessment against the local planning scheme. Under Schedule 4, table 4, item 1
of the Sustainable Planning Regulation 2009, operational work carried out on or behalf of TMR is not
assessable development against a planning scheme.
The proposed side track and temporary relocation of the 11kV line will require the removal of approximately
0.31ha of vegetation identified on the Regulated Vegetation Management Map and Vegetation Management
Supporting map as ‘Of Concern’ Category B (remnant) vegetation that is Essential habitat for the mahogany
glider and southern cassowary.
Pursuant to Schedule 24, Part 1 (11) of the Sustainable Planning Regulation 2009, clearing of native vegetation
is not assessable where the clearing is for the construction or maintenance of community infrastructure
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 10 of 16
mentioned in schedule 2 (Item 4: Operational work that is the clearing of native vegetation on a road) that is
government supported transport infrastructure. In addition, under the Land Act 1994, there is an exemption for
clearing remnant vegetation carried out by a local government or the department that administers the
Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 and (a) necessary for constructing and maintaining road infrastructure or
sourcing construction material for roads.
There are also exemptions for clearing remnant vegetation identified on a Regional Ecosystem map for a Statecontrolled road under the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994— (a) road works carried out on the Statecontrolled road; or (b) ancillary works and encroachments carried out under section 50 of the Act.
The project is therefore exempt from provisions of the State Development Assessment Provisions (SDAP),
Module 8 (Native vegetation clearing).
As a government department declared under the Public Service Act 2008, TMR are exempt from the
requirement for a Riverine Protection Permit pursuant to the Queensland Water Act 2000, if the Minimum
Requirements of the ‘Riverine protection permit exemption requirements’ are met. These exemptions apply if
excavation is less than 500 cubic metres and placement of fill is less than 150 cubic metres.
Tidal Works
A small portion of the proposed clearing area falls within the Coastal Management District (CMD) as detailed
within the Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995 (Figure 2). Arnot Creek is under tidal influence at the
Bruce Highway and marine plants occur both above and below the existing bridge. The ambient dry season
flow level below the bridge is 0.55m AHD, while the Mean High Water Spring (MHWS) level is 1.28m AHD.
No tidal works (including prescribed tidal works), whether new works, or extensions or alterations to existing
structures, may be carried out in, on, or above land under tidal water in Queensland without a development
approval in the form of a development permit issued under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA).
Under the Sustainable Planning Regulation 2009, Schedule 3 Part 1 Table 4 Item 5, assessable development
within a coastal management district includes operational works that are tidal works or works within a CMD as
listed under item 5 b). This activity does not involve any activity listed under table 4, item 5, therefore, the
operational works is not assessable development. However, Schedule 3 Part 1 Table 4 Item 1 notes that
clearing vegetation on freehold land or on a road requires code assessment and approval under the SPA will be
required. The project will also be assessed against the ‘Prescribed coastal works code’. The application for
development below high water mark must include land owners consent.
Local government is the assessment manager for tidal works that start within and are completely or partly
within a local government tidal area and not within the tidal area of strategic port land.
(https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/coastal/development/tidal-land/prescribed_tidal_work__assessed_by_local_government.html)
A new development permit is also required for demolition of a structure in a tidal area.
Some clearing of marine plants will be required, which would require a permit under the Fisheries Act 1994.
However, under the Sustainable Planning Regulation 2009, Schedule 3 Part 1 Table 4 Item 5, the removal,
destruction or damage of a marine plant is self-assessable if it is reasonably necessary for the maintenance of
a road. Since the self-assessable code excludes widening in any dimension or for clearing beyond 5m of the
structure, a permit to remove marine plants under the Fisheries Act 1994 will be necessary for this project.
Figures 2, 3 and 4 show the extent of work, location of the new bridge and indicative location of the side track.
Clearing will need to accommodate the side track, necessary roadside clearances and relocation of the Ergon
power line, necessitating the clearing of 3,315m2 (0.33ha) of remnant vegetation.
Figure 2 shows the mapped extent of remnant vegetation. The actual boundary of remnant vegetation is
obvious when compared to the proposed clearing footprint.
Figure 3 shows the mapped extent of watercourses, the boundary of the coastal management district and the
extent of the Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT), overlaid with the proposed clearing footprint.
Figure 4 shows the mapped extent of Essential Habitat for the endangered mahogany glider and southern
cassowary, overlaid with the proposed clearing footprint. Site investigations eliminated the likelihood of the
eastern portion being habitat for mahogany gliders.
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 11 of 16
Figure 2: Extent of mapped remnant vegetation at Arnot Creek
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 12 of 16
Figure 3: Extent of watercourses and Coastal Management District trigger areas
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 13 of 16
Figure 4: Extent of Essential habitat (Qld Vegetation Management Act 1999)
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 14 of 16
2.5 Environmental impact assessments under Commonwealth, state or territory legislation
If you have identified that the proposed action will be or has been subject to a state or territory environmental impact
statement (in section 1.11) you must complete this section. Describe any environmental assessment of the relevant impacts
of the project that has been, is being, or will be carried out under state or territory legislation. Specify the type and nature
of the assessment, the relevant legislation and the current status of any assessments or approvals. Where possible, provide
contact details for the state/territory assessment contact officer.
Describe or summarise any public consultation undertaken, or to be undertaken, during the assessment. Attach copies of
relevant assessment documentation and outcomes of public consultations (if available).
Not Applicable
2.6 Public consultation (including with Indigenous stakeholders)
Your referral must include a description of any public consultation that has been, or is being, undertaken. Where
Indigenous stakeholders are likely to be affected by your proposed action, your referral should describe any consultations
undertaken with Indigenous stakeholders. Identify the relevant stakeholders and the status of consultations at the time of
the referral. Where appropriate include copies of documents recording the outcomes of any consultations.
Previous consultation regarding this area has been undertaken with Mark Parsons (Department of National
Parks, Sport and Racing) regarding the values of the site for mahogany gliders and southern cassowaries,
including sighting records of cassowaries at this location.
In accordance the guidelines provided in the Queensland Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 Duty of Care
Guidelines, a survey to determine if Indigenous Cultural Heritage exists has been undertaken. This survey
found that a Cultural Heritage Management Agreement needs to be developed with the local traditional owners
and thee recommendations incorporated into the final project delivery methodology.
2.7 A staged development or component of a larger project
If you have identified that the proposed action is a component of a larger action (in section 1.12) you must complete this
section. Provide information about the larger action and details of any interdependency between the stages/components
and the larger action. You may also provide justification as to why you believe it is reasonable for the referred action to be
considered separately from the larger proposal (e.g. the referred action is ‘stand-alone’ and viable in its own right, there
are separate responsibilities for component actions or approvals have been split in a similar way at the state or local
government levels).
The previously stated components of this project represent the entirety of the project and it does not
constitute a component of a larger project. The project is a stand-alone project initiated by the Queensland
Department of Transport and main Roads and not by an external customer.
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 15 of 16
3 Description of environment & likely impacts
3.1 Matters of national environmental significance
Describe the affected area and the likely impacts of the proposal, emphasising the relevant matters protected by the EPBC
Act. Refer to relevant maps as appropriate. The interactive map tool can help determine whether matters of national
environmental significance or other matters protected by the EPBC Act are likely to occur in your area of interest.
Your assessment of likely impacts should refer to the following resources (available from the Department’s web site):
• specific values of individual World Heritage properties and National Heritage places and the ecological character of
Ramsar wetlands;
• profiles of relevant species/communities (where available), that will assist in the identification of whether there is likely
to be a significant impact on them if the proposal proceeds;
• Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 – Matters of National Environmental Significance; and
• associated sectoral and species policy statements available on the web site, as relevant.
Your assessment of likely impacts should consider whether a bioregional plan is relevant to your proposal. The Minister has
prepared four marine bioregional plans (MBP) in accordance with section 176. It is likely that the MBP’s will be more
commonly relevant where listed threatened species, listed migratory species or a Commonwealth marine area is
considered.
Note that even if your proposal will not be taken in a World Heritage area, Ramsar wetland, Commonwealth
marine area, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park or on Commonwealth land, it could still impact upon these
areas (for example, through downstream impacts). Consideration of likely impacts should include both direct
and indirect impacts.
3.1 (a) World Heritage Properties
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 16 of 16
Description
Great Barrier Reef
The proposed bridge construction and vegetation clearing is located approximately 16km inland from the coast.
Arnot creek is a tributary of the Seymour River that enters the Hinchinbrook Channel which is not within the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park but is within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, so this world heritage property
is a receiving environment.
Wet Tropics
The project area is located within the Wet Tropics Bioregion but not within the Wet Tropics World Heritage area,
which is 3.38km away at its nearest point. The lower reaches of Arnot Creek are within the boundaries of the Wet
Tropics World Heritage area, approximately 9.14km downstream. Therefore this world heritage property is a
receiving environment.
Nature and extent of likely impact
Address any impacts on the World Heritage values of any World Heritage property.
The total vegetation clearing footprint is 0.33ha in area, of which approximately 150m2 (0.015ha) may be within a
tidal area. Clearing within a tidal watercourse and its defining banks will be unavoidable.
Although TMR are exempt from requiring a Riverine Protection Permit, this exemption conditions described in the
DNRM document ‘Riverine protection permit exemption requirements’ (WSS/2013/726 Version 1.01 endorsed
2014) requires the following conditions to limit potential impacts:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The extent of the area required to carry out the permitted activity must be limited to the minimum area
necessary to reasonably carry out the works.
Sediment and erosion controls must be used.
All areas of disturbed bed and banks must be stabilised to protect against erosion.
All fill placed must be free from contamination (e.g. weeds seeds, oils, chemicals and other
contaminants).
Disturbed banks must be returned to a profile similar to the pre-disturbance condition.
Natural stream bed controls or features that create natural waterholes (e.g. riffles, logs, sediment or rock
bars) must not be lowered or removed.
Any excavated material that is not removed as waste must be spread evenly within the bed and banks of
the watercourse so that it does not interfere with the flow of water.
All fill placed in the bed of the stream must not redirect flow into an adjacent bank.
Access tracks or crossings must not interfere with the low flow of water.
The invert of culverts or the deck height of a splash through crossing must be placed at or below bed
level.
All culverts placed within the watercourse must be aligned with the stream channel and placed as close to
the centre of the watercourse channel as practical.
All culverts placed within the watercourse must be of a sufficient size to ensure uninterrupted low flows
and minimise the occurrence of blockage of culverts caused by flood-borne debris.
Constructed access tracks (e.g. culverts or splash through crossings) must be provided with a scour apron
and cut off wall on the downstream side sufficient to prevent bed erosion.
All disturbed areas must be revegetated with trees, shrub and grasses endemic to the area, sufficient to
re-establish a riparian environment and protect bed and banks from erosion.
Clearing within the watercourse zone will be undertaken in accordance with these conditions.
In consideration of these provisions and TMR’s Standard Specifications for Environmental Management and
Erosion and Sediment Control this project is considered unlikely to have any impacts on the World Heritage values
of the Great Barrier Reef or Queensland Wet Tropics World Heritage properties.
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 17 of 16
3.1 (b) National Heritage Places
Description
The Great Barrier Reef and Wet Tropics of Queensland are both listed as national Heritage properties and are
described in Section 3.1(a) above.
Nature and extent of likely impact
Address any impacts on the National Heritage values of any National Heritage place.
Potential impacts on the Great Barrier Reef and Wet Tropics of Queensland are described in Section 3.1(a) above.
3.1 (c) Wetlands of International Importance (declared Ramsar wetlands)
Description
The EPBC Protected Matters Search did not identify any Ramsar wetlands in, adjacent to or in the receiving
environment of the Arnot Creek project area. The search identified two Nationally Important Wetlands adjacent to
the project area. Although the Hinchinbrook Channel occurs downstream of the site (via the Seymour River), the
portion of Arnot Creek within the project area is defined as being part of the Herbert River Floodplain.
Nature and extent of likely impact
Address any impacts on the ecological character of any Ramsar wetlands.
This project will not impact on any Ramsar wetlands or Nationally Important Wetlands
3.1 (d) Listed threatened species and ecological communities
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 18 of 16
Description
The EPBC Protected Matters Search identified the threatened community ‘Broad leaf tea-tree (Melaleuca viridiflora) woodlands in high rainfall coastal north
Queensland’ as potentially occurring, however, site investigations confirmed this ecological community does not occur within or adjacent to the site.
An assessment of terrestrial flora and fauna identified in the EPBC protected matters search for the site are listed below in Table 1. Species exclusively reliant on a
marine habitat have been excluded from the assessment.
Table 1: Assessment of threatened flora and fauna species potentially occurring within the project area
Species
Common
Name
EPBC
Status1
Habitat
Level of Impact4
E
This member of the pea family is a prostrate trailing annual or
short-lived trailing perennial herb which dies back each year
(Hacker 1990). Known only from the Cape York and Northern
Gulf NRM regions, this legume occurs in grassy woodlands of
Melaleuca-Acacia, Eucalyptus-Callitris and Eucalyptus-Corymbia
woodlands on sandy soils derived from granite with a lower
horizon of impeded drainage (DoE 2015a).
LOW: Suitable habitat does not occur Arnot Creek
is a significant distance from the nearest known
locality. We conclude no impact is predicted as a
result of the Project.
E
A terrestrial orchid with a subterranean tuber that produces a tall
hollow leaf at the onset of the wet season. A flower spike
emerges producing 5-30 reddish-black, slightly nodding flowers.
It is known from a 25km long area of Melaleuca viridiflora
woodland on poorly drained coastal sands between Sunday
Creek and Five Mile Creek between the Cardwell Range and
Cardwell (DoE 2015b).
LOW: This orchid occurs outside the area to be
impacted by the proposed works, and is in a very
different vegetation community and soil type. We
conclude no impact is predicted as a result of the
Project.
V
This climbing fern has fronds 50-300mm long and is known to
occur as an epiphyte at higher altitudes (DoE 2015c). It has only
been collected once in 1926 from an unknown location in
Rockingham Bay near Cardwell at an elevation of 4,000 feet
(1,219m) (Kramer & McCarthy 1998, DoE 2015c).
LOW: The only climbing ferns located within the
proposed works site were Lygodium spp. The
location is on a lowland alluvial plain, at a much
different elevation and vegetation type than the
specimen previously collected in 1926. We conclude
no impact is predicted as a result of the Project.
PLANTS
Cajanus
mareebensis
Genoplesium
tectum
Lindsaea
pulchella var.
blanda
Cardwell
midge
orchid
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 1 of 16
Myrmecodia
beccarii
Phaius australis
Phalaenopsis
rosenstromii
Streblus
pendulinus
ant plant
swamp
orchid
Mt Spec
orchid
Siah's
Backbone
V
This distinctive epiphytic plant known as ‘ant plant’ occurs
primarily in broad leaved paperbark (Melaleuca viridiflora) open
woodland on alluvial plains, or mangrove communities (Calvert
et al. 2005). They use a range of host species including
Melaleuca viridiflora, M. quinquenervia, M. leucadendra
(Pers.obs), beach wattle (Acacia crassicarpa), or various
mangroves (Calvert et al. 2005). In the Townsville-Cardwell part
of its range, ant plant is normally found in association with a
number of other epiphytic plants, particularly button orchid
(Dischidia nummularia) and tea tree orchid (Cepobaculum
canaliculatum, formerly Dendrobium canaliculatum) (Calvert et al
2005).
LOW: There are no known records of Ant plants in
the area between Ingham and the Cardwell Range
and the proposed works are in a different vegetation
community than that known to contain ant plants.
The only potential host plants located within the
proposed footprint were M. leucadendra. Although
potential host trees were located, only a single tea
tree orchid was located. Although extensive
searches were conducted for the very distinctive
and easily seen ant plant, there were no specimens
found. We conclude no impact is predicted as a
result of the Project.
E
Phaius australis is known to occur in southern Queensland and
northern NSW (Benwell 1994). The distribution has been
tentatively described as being north from Port Macquarie to the
Barron River in north Queensland, although it is extremely rare
in the latter region (only 1 or 2 records) and the populations are
now thought to be destroyed (Benwell 1994). It is usually
associated with coastal wet heath/sedgeland wetlands, swampy
grassland or swampy forest, and often where Broad-leaved
paperbark or Swamp mahogany are found (Barry 2005).
LOW: Although the site does contain some habitat
characteristics, the only herbarium records from Nth
Qld are both from high altitudes. Intensive searches
of suitable habitat within the alignment did not locate
any specimens of this highly distinctive plant. We
conclude it is Unlikely to Occur within the proposed
alignment. No impact is predicted as a result of the
Project.
E
Formerly known as P. amabilis, this is an epiphytic orchid known
to grow in trees, rarely on rocks, in humid airy situations on
sheltered slopes and in gullies, in deep gorges and close to
streams in rainforests, at altitudes from 200–500 m (Jones
2006).
LOW: The site does not contain the preferred
habitat characteristics of this species. We conclude
it is Unlikely to Occur within the proposed alignment.
No impact is predicted as a result of the Project.
E
Recorded as Streblus brunonianus. Streblus pendulinus occurs
from Cape York Peninsula to Milton, south-east New South
Wales (NSW), as well as Norfolk Island. It is found in warmer
well developed rainforests, including gallery forest and drier,
more seasonal rainforest, chiefly along watercourses (DoE
2015d). Specimens are known from Clemant State Forest and
Ollera Creek rainforest, and the Wildlife Online records show a
specimen has been collected within 5km of the Arnot Crk site.
LOW: Although conditions within the site are
suitable for this species, an intensive search failed
to locate any specimens. We conclude that it is
Unlikely to Occur within the project footprint,
however, it may potentially occur in adjacent habitat.
No impact is predicted as a result of the Project.
E
The Lace-eyed tree frog occurs throughout the Wet Tropics
Bioregion from Paluma to Cooktown, northern Queensland, at
altitudes between 0 and 1,200m. It is associated with rainforests
and rainforest margins. In montane areas the species prefers
fast-flowing rocky streams although they also frequent slower
watercourses where ample vegetation exists along the margins.
At low elevations, the Lace-eyed Tree Frog favours rock soaks,
narrow ephemeral streams and rock outcrops in larger
watercourses (DoE 2015e).
LOW: The site does not contain the preferred rocky
habitat of this species. No impact is predicted as a
result of the Project.
AMPHIBIANS
Litoria dayi
Australian
lace-lid
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 2 of 16
Litoria nannotis
Litoria rheocola
waterfall
frog
common
mistfrog
E
This species is patchily distributed across the Wet tropics of
north-eastern Queensland across an altitudinal range of 1001,300m. It inhabits fast flowing streams in rainforest and
adjacent sclerophyll forest (Hoskin & Hero 2008).
LOW: The site does not contain the preferred
stream characteristics that provide habitat for this
species. No impact is predicted as a result of the
Project.
E
The Common mistfrog occurs from Broadwater Creek National
Park (north of Ingham) to Amos Bay (south of Cooktown) in
northern Queensland, at altitudes between 0 and 1,180m above
sea level. The species is restricted to fast flowing rocky creeks
and streams in rainforest and wet sclerophyll forest (DoE 2015f).
LOW: The site does not contain the preferred the
fast flowing rocky stream habitat of this species. No
impact is predicted as a result of the Project.
V
The distribution of the Yakka skink extends from the coast to the
hinterland of sub-humid to semi-arid eastern Queensland.
Locations range from the Queensland/New South Wales border
to Cape York Peninsula. It is known to occur in open dry
sclerophyll forest, woodland and scrub and within these habitats
is commonly found in cavities under and between partly buried
rocks, logs or tree stumps, root cavities and abandoned animal
burrows. In cleared habitat, this species can persist where there
are shelter sites such as raked log piles, deep gullies, tunnel
erosion/sinkholes and rabbit warrens (DoE 2015g). This species
has not been recorded from the Ingham region.
LOW: The dry open woodland community
considered to represent suitable habitat does not
occur on site, and there are no records of this
species in the Ingham region. No impact is
predicted as a result of the Project.
The Southern Cassowary occurs in Cape York and the Wet
tropics. In the Wet tropics, the Southern Cassowary occurs
between Cooktown and Townsville, being distributed throughout
the coastal, hinterland and tableland areas south to the
Bluewater Range (north of Townsville). Although widely
distributed in this area, it occurs patchily at both the local and
regional scale. It generally requires dense tropical rainforest
(such as complex/non-complex notophyll/mesophyll vine forest)
and associated habitat (such as mangrove Melaleuca, eucalypt
woodland, swamp and swamp forest), that provides a yearround supply of fleshy fruit (DoE 2015h).
MODERATE: Arnot Creek is regarded as a
seasonal movement corridor and vegetation on both
sides of the highway are mapped as ‘Essential
habitat’ under the Vegetation Management Act 1999
for this species. Improvement of the fauna
underpass will allow improved passage under the
highway, and cleared vegetation will be replaced
with revegetation. When assessed against the
Significant Impact Guidelines for the Southern
Cassowary (DEWHA 2010), the project exceeds the
thresholds by undertaking:
• Any clearing in a watercourse within, adjacent or
linking between areas of potential cassowary
habitat,
• Any road, trail, or other access point, construction
or upgrade
REPTILES
Egernia rugosa
yakka skink
BIRDS
Casuarius
casuarius
johnsonii
Southern
cassowary
E
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 3 of 16
Erythrotriorchis
radiatus
Pelagodroma
marina
Poephila cincta
cincta
Rostratula
australis
Tyto
novaehollandiae
kimberlii
Red
goshawk
Whitebellied
storm petrel
Blackthroated
finch
Australian
painted
snipe
Masked owl
V
The Red goshawk occurs in coastal and sub-coastal areas in
wooded and forested lands of tropical and warm-temperate
Australia (Marchant & Higgins 1993). It nests in large trees,
frequently the tallest and most massive in a tall stand, and nest
trees are invariably within 1km of permanent water. Habitat must
be open enough for fast attack and manoeuvring in flight, but
provide cover for ambushing of prey. Therefore, forests of
intermediate density are favoured, or ecotones between habitats
of differing densities, such as between rainforest and eucalypt
forest, between gallery forest and woodland, or on edges of
woodland and forest where they meet grassland, cleared land,
roads or watercourses (DoE 2015i). This species is only very
rarely seen in the Townsville – Ingham region and are not
thought to be permanent residents.
LOW: Red goshawks have previously been
recorded between Ingham and the Cardwell Range.
There is potential for this species to fly over and
utilise the site for foraging from time to time.
However, no nests or suitable nesting sites were
identified during the field investigations. No impact
is predicted as a result of the Project.
V
This is a pelagic sea bird that is known to breed on Lord Howe
Island and other islands in the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean. It
mostly occurs along the edge of the continental shelf and only
occasionally over inshore waters (Morecombe 2003). It is most
commonly seen from the south coast of NSW to south-east Qld
(Morecombe 2003).
LOW: The site does not contain the preferred
habitat of this species. No impact is predicted as a
result of the Project.
E
The Black-throated finch (southern) occurs mainly in grassy,
open woodlands and forests, typically dominated by Eucalyptus
(especially E. platyphylla), Corymbia and Melaleuca, and
occasionally in tussock grasslands or other habitats (for example
freshwater wetlands), often along or near watercourses, or in the
vicinity of water (DoE 2015j). It is likely that permanent sources
of water provide refuge for this species during the dry season,
especially during drought years.
LOW: The grassy open woodland habitat favoured
by this species does not occur on site. No impact is
predicted as a result of the Project.
E
The Australian painted snipe generally inhabits shallow
terrestrial freshwater (occasionally brackish) wetlands, including
temporary and permanent lakes, swamps and claypans. They
also use inundated or waterlogged grassland or saltmarsh,
dams, rice crops, sewage farms and bore drains (DoE 2015k).
Typical sites include those with rank emergent tussocks of
grass, sedges, rushes or reeds, or samphire. This species is
only rarely recorded in the Townsville and Ingham regions.
LOW: The site does not contain the preferred
habitat of this species. No impact is predicted as a
result of the Project.
V
The masked owl is recorded from riparian forest, rainforest, open
forest, Melaleuca swamps, edges of mangroves, and along the
margins of sugar cane fields (DoE 2015l). They roost in tree
hollows during the day, and hunt over open grassland, sugar
cane and occasionally heavier forest (Nielsen 1996). In the
Ingham area, it is known to breed at Tyto wetlands.
LOW: Potential habitat occurs within the patch of
remnant vegetation and records exist in the local
region. However, a paucity of tree hollows within the
project area limits its value as roosting habitat and
the extent of clearing is considered insignificant in
context of broader suitable foraging habitat in the
immediate vicinity. No significant impact is predicted
as a result of the Project.
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 4 of 16
MAMMALS
Dasyurus
hallucatus
Dasyurus
maculatus
gracilis
Hipposideros
semoni
Northern
quoll
Spotted-tail
quoll
Semon’s
leaf-nosed
bat
E
It occupies a diversity of habitats including rocky areas, eucalypt
forest and woodlands, rainforests, sandy lowlands and beaches,
shrubland, grasslands and desert. However, habitat generally
encompasses some form of rocky area for denning purposes
with surrounding vegetated habitats used for foraging and
dispersal. Habitats usually have a high structural diversity
containing large diameter trees, termite mounds or hollow logs
for denning purposes (DoE 2015m).
LOW: Although this species has been recorded
within 10km of the site, the site does not contain the
preferred habitat of this species. There are quoll
records from the Cardwell Range but not from the
Ingham-Halifax lowlands (Woinarski et al 2008). No
impact is predicted as a result of the Project.
E
Historically, the Spotted-tailed quoll (northern subspecies)
occurred from the Paluma Range near Townsville north to near
Cooktown, in north-eastern Queensland. The southernmost
population in the Paluma Range is possibly extinct, with no
records since the early 1940s, despite high levels of visitation
and human occupancy of that region (DoE 2015n).
The subspecies is mostly confined to the relatively cool, wet and
climatically equable upland closed-forests (mostly above 900 m
altitude) that occur in the upper catchments of rivers draining
east and west of the Eastern Escarpment. It is also suggested
that the species occurs in lower altitude notophyll, mesophyll
and wet sclerophyll forests in lesser numbers. The subspecies
utilises dens for resting and for raising young. Dens have been
found in tree hollows, logs, rock crevasses and even among
building materials (DoE 2015n).
LOW: The site is outside the currently known range
and does not contain the preferred habitat of this
species. No impact is predicted as a result of the
Project.
E
The known broad-scale distribution for Semon's Leaf-nosed Bat
is poorly known but thought to include coastal areas from Cape
York to Townsville with an outlier population at Kroombit Tops,
near Gladstone (Churchill 2008, DEHP 2015o). However, they
have not been recorded in the Wet Tropics south of the Mt
Windsor Tablelands approximately 280km north-west of the site
(DoE 2015o). Semon's Leaf-nosed Bat is found in tropical
rainforest, monsoon forest, wet sclerophyll forest and open
savannah woodland. Daytime roost sites include tree hollows,
deserted buildings in rainforest, road culverts and shallow caves
amongst granite boulders or in fissures (DoE 2015o).
LOW: The site occurs outside the established range
of the species. There is a paucity of potential roost
sites in the project area, and although the site does
represent potential foraging area, the extent of
clearing is considered insignificant in context of
broader suitable foraging habitat in the immediate
vicinity. No impact is predicted as a result of the
Project.
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 5 of 16
Petaurus gracilis
Phascolarctos
cinereus
Pteropus
conspicillatus
Mahogany
glider
Koala
Spectacled
flying fox
E
Mahogany gliders are endemic to Australia and are restricted to
the coastal southern Wet Tropics region of northern
Queensland. The species occurs in an area of coastal lowland
forest between Ollera Creek (40 km south of Ingham) and the
Hull River (near Tully). The species is restricted to lowland
Eucalypt woodland dominated by Bloodwoods (Corymbia spp.
Eucalyptus spp.) and Acacia spp. An open vegetation structure
is required to facilitate gliding (DoE 2015p).
LOW: Although vegetation on both sides of the
highway are mapped as ‘Essential habitat’ under the
Vegetation Management Act 1999, the existing
highway easement is currently too wide to allow
gliders access to the eastern side, so the site does
not represent a glider corridor (Calvert 2015,
Appendix 1). The vegetation on the eastern side is
highly modified by rainforest and weed
encroachment and represents suboptimal habitat.
The eastern vegetation polygon impacted by the
project is smaller than that required to support
mahogany gliders and no gliders were detected
during surveys (Calvert 2015, Appendix 1). When
assessed against the Significant Impact Guidelines
for Endangered Species (DoE 2013), it was
predicted that no significant impact would occur as a
result of the Project.
V
The range of this population extends from approximately the
latitude of Cairns to the New South Wales-Victoria border (DoE
2015q). Koalas inhabit a range of temperate, sub-tropical and
tropical forest, woodland and semi-arid communities dominated
by species from the genus Eucalyptus (Martin & Handasyde
1999). The koala’s diet is restricted mainly to foliage of
Eucalyptus species but may also consume foliage of related
genera, including Corymbia, Angophora and Lophostemon and
at times supplement its diet with other species, including species
from the genera Leptospermum and Melaleuca (Martin and
Handasyde 1999; Moore and Foley 2000).
LOW – The Atlas of Living Australia do not show
any records from the Wet Tropics coastal region.
Open woodland habitats were restricted to
Melaleuca communities, and known food plants
were uncommon. The site is a small fragment with
little suitable habitat and highly tenuous connectivity
comprised almost entirely of unsuitable rainforest
habitat. No impact is predicted as a result of the
Project.
The Spectacled Flying-fox occurs in north-eastern Queensland,
between Ingham and Cooktown, and between the McIlwraith
and Iron Ranges of Cape York. The species is associated
primarily with rainforest and sometimes with mangroves,
however, they also utilise drier forest types (DERM 2010).
Roosts are always found within 6 km of rainforest (DoE 2015r).
Although the maximum recorded distance to a foraging site is
43.4km, the mean foraging distance is 11.8km (DERM 2010).
LOW: No camps were located on or adjacent to the
project area. The nearest ‘Nationally Important
Camps of Spectacled flying Fox’ are at Broadwater
State Forest and Cardwell golf course, located
29km and 36km respectively from the project site,
which are outside the 11.8km radius typically
utilised. The site contains numerous food plants and
represents a small potential foraging area, however,
the extent of clearing are considered insignificant in
context of broader suitable foraging habitat in the
immediate vicinity. No significant impact is predicted
as a result of the Project.
V
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 6 of 16
Rhinolophus
robertsi (Syn R.
philippinensis)
Saccolaimus
saccolaimus
nudicluniatus
Xeromys
myoides
Greater
large-eared
horseshoe
bat
Barerumped
sheathtail
bat
water
mouse
E
The species is found in lowland rainforest, along gallery forestlined creeks within open eucalypt forest, Melaleuca forest with
rainforest understorey, open savanna woodland and tall riparian
woodland of Melaleuca, Forest red gum (E. tereticornis) and
Moreton Bay ash (C. tesselaris). It mainly roosts in caves and
underground mines located in rainforest, and open eucalypt
forest and woodland, however roosts have also been observed
in road culverts, and it is suspected that the species also uses
basal hollows of large trees, dense vegetation, rock piles and
areas beneath creek banks (DoE 2015s). Although the Atlas of
Living Australia does not show any specimens south of Mt
Garnet, they have been recorded as far south as Cape
Cleveland near Townsville (pers. obs).
LOW: Although there is potential for this species to
fly over and forage over the site from time to time,
no suitable roosting sites occur and the habitat type
and extent of clearing are considered insignificant in
context of broader suitable foraging habitat in the
immediate vicinity. No impact is predicted as a
result of the Project.
CE
Occasional individuals have been collected from a narrow
coastal region (less than 40 km inland) between Ayr and
Cooktown, North Queensland, with one isolated specimen from
north of Coen on Cape York Peninsula (DoE 2015t).
The species inhabits tropical woodland and tall open forests
where it roosts in long, wide hollows in the trunks of various
Eucalypts. It appears to prefer coastal Eucalypt forests with high
annual rainfall (Curtis et al. 2012).
LOW: The tall coastal eucalypt forest preferred by
this species does not occur within the project area.
No impact is predicted as a result of the Project.
V
In Queensland the Water mouse occurs in the central south and
south-east regions. In the central south the species occurs
between Agnes Water and Mackay (DoE 2015t) and has only
been captured in the high inter-tidal zone in tall, closed fringing
mangrove forest containing only Ceriops tagal and/or Bruguiera
sp (Ball 2004). Although not considered core habitat, the Water
mouse has also been captured in saline grassland adjacent to a
closed forest of Ceriops tagal and Bruguiera sp and in closed
forest of Avicennia marina (Ball 2004).
LOW: The site occurs outside the known range of
the species and suitable habitat does not occur
within the project area. No impact is predicted as a
result of the Project.
Nature and extent of likely impact
Address any impacts on the members of any listened threatened species (except a conservation dependent species) or any threatened ecological community, or their habitat.
As listed above
3.1 (e) Listed migratory species
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 7 of 16
Description
Table 2: Assessment of migratory fauna species potentially occurring within the project area
Species
Common
Name
Habitat
Level of Impact
Estuarine
crocodile
The Estuarine crocodile inhabits coastal rivers and swamps and extends
inland along major drainage systems. It is also occasionally observed in the
open ocean (Wilson & Swan 2010).
LOW: The species has been recorded within 5km of
the site. The minor shallow watercourses within the
project footprint are not considered to provide
suitable habitat for this species. The bridge structure
will not represent a barrier to their movement along
the watercourse during high flow events. No impact
predicted as a result of the Project.
Fork-tailed
swift
The Fork-tailed swift is a non-breeding visitor to all states and territories of
Australia (Higgins 1999). In north-east Queensland there are many records
east of the Great Divide from near Cooktown and south to Townsville. The
species is almost exclusively aerial, and mostly occur over inland plains,
over dry or open habitats, including riparian woodland and tea-tree swamps,
low scrub, heathland or saltmarsh. They also occur over settled areas,
including towns, urban areas and cities (Pizzey & Knight 1997).
LOW: The closed canopy vegetation along Arnot
Creek does not represent suitable foraging habitat.
No impact predicted as a result of the Project.
Little tern
The Little tern is generally found in sheltered coastal areas, such as
beaches, sheltered inlets, estuaries, lakes, sewage farms, lagoons, river
mouths and deltas (Curtis et al 2012). Nesting usually takes place between
the high tide mark and shore vegetation (Curtis et al 2012).
LOW: Suitable habitat for this species does not
occur on site. No impact predicted as a result of the
Project.
The habitats occupied by the sea-eagle are characterised by the presence
of large areas of open water (larger rivers, swamps, lakes, and ocean). Birds
have been recorded at or in the vicinity of freshwater swamps, lakes,
reservoirs, billabongs, saltmarsh and sewage ponds, as well as in (or flying
over) a variety of terrestrial habitats (Marchant & Higgins 1993).
LOW: The species has been recorded within 5km of
the site and there is potential for this species to fly
over and utilise the site from time to time. However,
no nests or suitable nesting sites were identified
during the field investigations. The project area is
unlikely to represent important breeding or foraging
habitat
Migratory Marine Species
Crocodylus
porosus
Apus pacificus
Sterna albifrons
Migratory Terrestrial Birds
Haliaeetus
leucogaster
Whitebellied sea
eagle
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 8 of 16
Hirundapus
caudacutus
Hirundo rustica
Merops ornatus
Monarcha
melanopsis
Monarcha
trivirgatus
Whitethroated
needletail
The White-throated needletail breeds in the Northern Hemisphere but is
widespread in eastern and south-eastern Australia during summer months
(Barrett et al. 2003; Higgins 1999). In eastern Australia, it is recorded in all
coastal regions of Queensland and NSW, extending inland to the western
slopes of the Great Divide and occasionally onto the adjacent inland plains.
The species is almost exclusively aerial, from heights of less than 1m up to
more than 1,000m above the ground. Although they occur over most types
of habitat, they are probably recorded most often above wooded areas,
including open forest and rainforest (Higgins 1999).
LOW: Although there is potential for this species to
fly over and utilise the site from time to time, the
habitat type and extent of clearing are considered
insignificant in context of broader suitable foraging
habitat in the immediate vicinity. No impact
predicted as a result of the Project.
Barn
swallow
The Barn swallow is a non-breeding migrant to Australia, usually occurs
patchily along the north coast from the Pilbara region, Western Australia, to
Fraser Island in Queensland (SEWPAC 2012ag). It is recorded in open
country in coastal lowlands, often near water, towns and cities. Birds are
often sighted perched on overhead wires (Blakers et al. 1984), and also in or
over freshwater wetlands, paperbark Melaleuca woodland, mesophyll shrub
thickets and tussock grassland (Schodde & Mason 1999).
LOW: In the Wet Tropics, it is most commonly seen
between Innisfail and Mossman (Nielsen1996). The
Ingham area is not a frequently occupied part of
their range and the project area does not represent
an area critical to their use of the area. The
proposed action will not reduce the value of foraging
areas. No impact predicted as a result of the
Project.
Rainbow
bee eater
The Rainbow bee-eater is distributed across much of mainland Australia,
where it is both a migratory and wintering resident species. The species
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). It usually occurs in open, cleared or lightlytimbered areas that are often, but not always, located in close proximity to
permanent water (Higgins 1999). It also occurs in inland and coastal sand
dune systems, and has been recorded in various other habitat types
including heathland, sedgeland, vine forest and vine thicket, and on beaches
(Higgins 1999).
LOW: This species has been recorded within 10km
of the site. Whilst some minor areas of potential
forage habitat may be removed this is not
considered significant in the context of available
forage resources in the area. No impact predicted
as a result of the Project.
Black-faced
monarch
The Black-faced monarch is found along the coast of eastern Australia,
becoming less common further south. The species inhabits rainforests,
eucalypt woodlands, coastal scrub and damp gullies. It may be found in
more open woodland when migrating. It forages for insects among foliage,
or catches flying insects on the wing (Marchant & Higgins 1993).
LOW: Although considered to provide potential
habitat for this species, particularly during migration,
the project will result in only minor and incremental
loss of habitat, which would not be significant in the
context of broader suitable foraging habitat in the
immediate vicinity. No impact predicted as a result
of the Project.
Spectacled
monarch
The Spectacled monarch is found throughout coastal north-eastern and
eastern Australia and coastal islands, from Cape York (Qld) to the Watson
River on the west coast and to Port Stephens (NSW) on the east coast. It
inhabits the understorey of mountain and lowland rainforests, thickly wooded
gullies, waterside vegetation including mangroves, mostly well below the
canopy (Pizzey & Knight 2007).
LOW: The areas within the proposed alignment are
considered to be too small to represent significant
habitat or to support significant numbers. Whilst
some areas of potential forage habitat may be
removed this is not considered significant in the
context of available forage resources in the area. No
impact predicted as a result of the Project.
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 9 of 16
Myiagra
cyanoleuca
Rhipidura
rufifrons
Ardea alba
Ardea ibis
Gallinago
hardwickii
Satin
flycatcher
The Satin flycatcher is widespread in eastern Australia. In Queensland, it is
widespread but scattered in the east (Pizzey & Knight 2007). It is essentially
a ‘passage migrant’, traversing through the Wet Tropics as it moves from
New Guinea to breeding areas in south-east Australia (Nielsen 1996). Satin
flycatchers inhabit heavily vegetated gullies in eucalypt-dominated forests
and taller woodlands. They especially prefer wet sclerophyll forest with a tall
shrubby understorey of tall acacias (Blakers et al. 1984). They are arboreal
foragers, feeding high in the canopy and subcanopy of trees, usually sallying
for prey in the air or picking prey from foliage and branches of trees (Pizzey
& Knight 2007).
LOW: The species is a regular visitor to the Ingham
region but only en route to areas of greater
ecological importance. Whilst some areas of
potential forage habitat may be removed this is not
considered significant in the context of available
forage resources in the area. No impact predicted
as a result of the Project.
Rufous
fantail
The Rufous fantail is found throughout coastal eastern Australia and coastal
islands (Pizzey & Knight 2007). It inhabits the understorey of rainforest,
wetter eucalypt forest, thickly wooded gullies, monsoon forest, paperbarks,
sub-inland and coastal scrubs, and vegetation along watercourses. They are
mainly insectivorous, preying on arthropods, mostly insects which are
gleaned from leaves, branches, the ground and logs (Pizzey & Knight 2007).
LOW: The species is a regular visitor to the ingham
region and has been recorded within 5km of the
site. Whilst some areas of potential forage habitat
may be removed this is not considered significant in
the context of available forage resources in the
area. No impact predicted as a result of the Project.
Great egret
Great egrets are widespread and occur in all states/territories. They have
been reported in a wide range of wetland habitats (for example inland and
coastal, freshwater and saline, permanent and ephemeral, open and
vegetated, large and small, natural and artificial) (DoE 2015u). These
include swamps and marshes; margins of rivers and lakes; damp or flooded
grasslands, pastures or agricultural lands; reservoirs; sewage treatment
ponds; drainage channels; salt pans and salt lakes; salt marshes; estuarine
mudflats, tidal streams; mangrove swamps; coastal lagoons; and offshore
reefs (Marchant & Higgins 1993).
LOW: Although the Great egret has been recorded
within 10km of the site, there is no significant habitat
within the project site. Areas that previously might
have been useable habitat are extensively degraded
by introduced para grass. No impact predicted as a
result of the Project.
Cattle egret
The Cattle egret is widespread and common according to migration
movements and breeding localities surveys (DoE 2015v). The species
occurs in tropical and temperate grasslands, woodlands and terrestrial
wetlands. High numbers have been observed in moist, low-lying poorly
drained pastures with an abundance of high grass; it avoids low grass
pastures. It is commonly associated with the habitats of farm animals,
particularly cattle, and is known to follow earth-moving machinery. It also
uses predominately shallow, open and fresh wetlands including meadows
and swamps with low emergent vegetation and abundant aquatic flora
(Marchant & Higgins 1993).
LOW: Although the Cattle egret has been recorded
within 10km of the site, there is no significant habitat
within the project site. Areas that previously might
have been useable habitat are extensively degraded
by introduced para grass. No impact predicted as a
result of the Project.
Latham’s
snipe
Latham's snipe is a non-breeding visitor to south-eastern Australia, and is a
passage migrant through northern Australia (i.e. it travels through northern
Australia to reach non-breeding areas located further south) (Higgins &
Davies 1996). It occurs in permanent and ephemeral wetlands up to 2,000
m above sea-level and usually inhabit open, freshwater wetlands with low,
dense vegetation (e.g. swamps, flooded grasslands or heathlands, around
bogs and other water bodies) (DoE 2015w).
LOW: Although considered a regular visitor to Tyto
Wetlands in Ingham, no significant areas of useable
habitat occur within the project area. No impact
predicted as a result of the Project.
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 10 of 16
Pandion
cristatus
Rostratula
australis
Eastern
osprey
The Eastern osprey is a large bird of prey commonly found along the north
Australian coastline, particularly on rocky shorelines, islands and reefs. They
often favour the mouths of large rivers, lagoons and lakes where they
specialise in catching fish over clear, open water. They usually nest high in
dead trees, tally rocky outcrops or artificial structures, usually within one
kilometre of the sea.
LOW: The species is common along the coast of
the Wet Tropics, particularly the Hinchinbrook
Channel (Nielsen 1996). No foraging habitat or
nesting areas occur in the site, so no impact is
predicted as a result of the Project.
Painted
snipe
The Australian painted snipe generally inhabits shallow terrestrial freshwater
(occasionally brackish) wetlands, including temporary and permanent lakes,
swamps and claypans. They also use inundated or waterlogged grassland
or saltmarsh, dams, rice crops, sewage farms and bore drains (DoE 2015k).
Typical sites include those with rank emergent tussocks of grass, sedges,
rushes or reeds, or samphire. This species is only rarely recorded in the
Townsville and Ingham regions.
LOW: The site does not contain the preferred
habitat of this species. No impact predicted as a
result of the Project.
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 11 of 16
Nature and extent of likely impact
Address any impacts on the members of any listed migratory species, or their habitat.
Listed above
3.1 (f) Commonwealth marine area
(If the action is in the Commonwealth marine area, complete 3.2(c) instead. This section is for actions taken
outside the Commonwealth marine area that may have impacts on that area.)
Description
As described in Section 3.1 (a) above, the proposed bridge construction and vegetation clearing is located
approximately 16km inland from the coast. Arnot creek is a tributary of the Seymour River that enters the
Hinchinbrook Channel which is within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.
Nature and extent of likely impact
Address any impacts on any part of the environment in the Commonwealth marine area.
Although the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area is in the receiving environment of Arnot Creek, no impacts
on the World Heritage area are expected to occur.
The total vegetation clearing footprint is 0.33ha in area, of which approximately 150m2 (0.015ha) may be within a
tidal area. Clearing within a tidal watercourse and its defining banks will be unavoidable.
By complying with the exemption conditions described in ‘Riverine protection permit exemption requirements’
(DNRM 2014), negative impacts relating to elevated sediment loads, contamination, erosion, and water flow will
be avoided. These conditions are listed in Section 3.1 (a) above.
In addition any conditions of the required Development Approval associated with Marine Plant clearing will be
complied with.
3.1 (g) Commonwealth land
(If the action is on Commonwealth land, complete 3.2(d) instead. This section is for actions taken outside
Commonwealth land that may have impacts on that land.)
Description
If the action will affect Commonwealth land also describe the more general environment. The Policy Statement titled
Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2 - Actions on, or impacting upon, Commonwealth land, and actions by Commonwealth
agencies provides further details on the type of information needed. If applicable, identify any potential impacts from actions
taken outside the Australian jurisdiction on the environment in a Commonwealth Heritage Place overseas.
This project does not impact on any Commonwealth land
Nature and extent of likely impact
Address any impacts on any part of the environment in the Commonwealth land. Your assessment of impacts should refer to
the Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2 - Actions on, or impacting upon, Commonwealth land, and actions by Commonwealth
agencies and specifically address impacts on:
• ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities;
• natural and physical resources;
• the qualities and characteristics of locations, places and areas;
• the heritage values of places; and
• the social, economic and cultural aspects of the above things.
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 1 of 16
3.1 (h) The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Description
As described in Section 3.1 (a) and 3.1 (f) above, the proposed bridge construction and vegetation clearing is
located approximately 16km inland from the coast. Arnot creek is a tributary of the Seymour River that enters the
Hinchinbrook Channel which is within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.
Nature and extent of likely impact
Address any impacts on any part of the environment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
Note: If your action occurs in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park you may also require permission under the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park Act 1975 (GBRMP Act). If so, section 37AB of the GBRMP Act provides that your referral under the EPBC Act is
deemed to be an application under the GBRMP Act and Regulations for necessary permissions and a single integrated process
will generally apply. Further information is available at www.gbrmpa.gov.au
As described in Section 3.1 (a) and 3.1 (f) above
3.1 (i) A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development
Description
If the action is a coal seam gas development or large coal mining development that has, or is likely to have, a significant
impact on water resources, the draft Policy Statement Significant Impact Guidelines: Coal seam gas and large coal mining
developments—Impacts on water resources provides further details on the type of information needed.
Not applicable
Nature and extent of likely impact
Address any impacts on water resources. Your assessment of impacts should refer to the draft Significant Impact Guidelines:
Coal seam gas and large coal mining developments—Impacts on water resources.
3.2 Nuclear actions, actions taken by the Commonwealth (or Commonwealth
agency), actions taken in a Commonwealth marine area, actions taken on
Commonwealth land, or actions taken in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
You must describe the nature and extent of likely impacts (both direct & indirect) on the whole environment if your project:
• is a nuclear action;
• will be taken by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency;
• will be taken in a Commonwealth marine area;
• will be taken on Commonwealth land; or
• will be taken in the Great Barrier Reef marine Park.
Your assessment of impacts should refer to the Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2 - Actions on, or impacting upon,
Commonwealth land, and actions by Commonwealth agencies and specifically address impacts on:
• ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities;
• natural and physical resources;
• the qualities and characteristics of locations, places and areas;
• the heritage values of places; and
• the social, economic and cultural aspects of the above things.
3.2 (a)
Is the proposed action a nuclear action?
√
No
Yes (provide details below)
If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 2 of 16
3.2 (b)
Is the proposed action to be taken by the
Commonwealth or a Commonwealth
agency?
√
No
Yes (provide details below)
If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment
3.2 (c)
Is the proposed action to be taken in a
Commonwealth marine area?
√
No
Yes (provide details below)
If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(f))
3.2 (d)
Is the proposed action to be taken on
Commonwealth land?
√
No
Yes (provide details below)
If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(g))
3.2 (e)
Is the proposed action to be taken in the
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park?
√
No
Yes (provide details below)
If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(h))
3.3
Other important features of the environment
Provide a description of the project area and the affected area, including information about the following features (where
relevant to the project area and/or affected area, and to the extent not otherwise addressed above). If at Section 2.3 you
identified any alternative locations, time frames or activities for your proposed action, you must complete each of the
details below (where relevant) for each alternative identified.
3.3 (a) Flora and fauna
The proposed works are in a riparian Melaleuca community that has been reduced to a narrow strip, subject to
weed invasion and other edge effects. Vegetation is consistent with the description for Regional Ecosystem:
•
7.3.25a: “Riverine wetland or fringing riverine wetland. Melaleuca leucadendra open forest and woodland.
Stream levees and prior streams on well-drained sandy clay loam alluvial soils”.
The site is surrounded by sugar cane farming. In the absence of fire, the woodland community has been
secondarily invaded by rainforest plants, primarily fast growing pioneer species.
A number of threatened flora and fauna species were predicted to occur on site, and assessed for their
individual potential to occur on site in Section 3.1.d above.
3.3 (b) Hydrology, including water flows
The subject area is located within the Herbert River Drainage Basin, although the project works straddle Arnot
Creek, a tributary of the Seymour River which ultimately drains into the Hinchinbrook Channel.
Hydrological studies have been undertaken by Dr Mark Jempson (Venant Solutions). Hydrological models have
been undertaken to ensure that hydrology will not be adversely affected by the proposed works.
3.3 (c) Soil and Vegetation characteristics
The land zone mapped within the area is land zone 3 (quaternary alluvial).
Soils are below 10 AHD however ASRIS maps the site as low probability for potential and or actual acid
sulphate soils.
The Main Roads soil group maps the project site as Texture Contrast Dispersive soils. As such soils can be
expected to be highly erodible where slopes are exposed.
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 3 of 16
3.3 (d) Outstanding natural features
There are no outstanding natural features within the proposed footprint of the site.
3.3 (e) Remnant native vegetation
A review of remnant vegetation as shown on the Vegetation Management Supporting Map (DNRM 2015) show
the site is a remnant patch of the ‘Of Concern’ Regional Ecosystem
•
7.3.25a: “Riverine wetland or fringing riverine wetland. Melaleuca leucadendra open forest and woodland.
Stream levees and prior streams on well-drained sandy clay loam alluvial soils”.
This vegetation occurs in a near-continuous strip, terminating in mangrove communities to the east. It
represents a wildlife corridor for flying birds and for ground dwelling fauna that are able to cross the road. It
does not represent a fauna corridor for the mahogany glider. This strip of remnant vegetation occurs within a
broader landscape of cleared agricultural land, dominated by sugar cane farms.
3.3 (f) Gradient (or depth range if action is to be taken in a marine area)
The project area is not in a marine area
3.3 (g) Current state of the environment
Include information about the extent of erosion, whether the area is infested with weeds or feral animals and whether the
area is covered by native vegetation or crops.
• Much of the footprint to the east of the existing highway alignment comprises slashed roadside.
• The remnant riparian Melaleuca woodland in the clearing footprint has been substantially altered by
secondary rainforest colonisation of the mid and lower storeys, particularly by fast growing pioneer species.
• Although mapped as remnant vegetation, the segment of proposed clearing is not pristine and the margins
have been modified by weed invasion. Of the 54 plant species recorded in the area, 16 species (29.6%) were
introduced plants including five species listed as declared Weeds under the Queensland Land Protection (Pest
and Stock Route Management) Act 2002. Open areas within the watercourse were invaded by the introduced
para grass (Urochloa mutica), significantly reducing the biodiversity values of these areas. Introduced vines are
a significant feature of the forest edge, including the Class 1 vine weed Thunbergia fragrans.
• The site is regularly flooded, and this has limited the encroachment of sugar cane into the site. Tidal flow
influences the margins of the larger stream bed, and the Blind Your Eye mangrove (Excoecaria agallocha)
dominates within this zone.
• Vegetation within the proposed clearing footprint to the east has been modified by contractors for Ergon
Energy who have recently pruned and poisoned a number of trees to maintain their minimum clearances from
overhead conductors which is not evident in the imagery of the provided maps.
3.3 (h) Commonwealth Heritage Places or other places recognised as having heritage values
The Protected matters Search identified three National Heritage Properties within 10km of the site:
Great Barrier Reef
The proposed bridge construction and vegetation clearing is located approximately 16km inland from the
mouth of the Seymour River that enters the Hinchinbrook Channel within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage
Area.
Wet Tropics
The project area is located within the Wet Tropics Bioregion but not within the Wet Tropics World Heritage
area, which is 3.38km away at its nearest point. The lower reaches of Arnot Creek are within the boundaries of
the Wet Tropics World Heritage area, approximately 9.14km downstream.
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 4 of 16
Wet Tropics World Heritage Area (Indigenous Values)
The Wet Tropics contains camping places and archaeological sites that demonstrate year-round occupation of
the rainforest by Aboriginal people. Landscape features, resource areas and several artefact scatters have
previously been identified within 200m of the site. Additional surveys and consultation with traditional owners
will be carried out prior to construction.
3.3 (i) Indigenous heritage values
A Cultural Heritage Risk Assessment (CHRA) and a DATSIMA database search has been completed for the
proposed scope of works. The CHRA assessment assessed the project as a High Risk Category 5 (Queensland
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 Duty of Care Guidelines). In accordance with these guidelines, a survey
to determine if Indigenous Cultural Heritage exists within the project site will be undertaken with traditional
owners and their recommendations incorporated into the final project design.
3.3 (j) Other important or unique values of the environment
Describe any other key features of the environment affected by, or in proximity to the proposed action (for example, any
national parks, conservation reserves, wetlands of national significance etc).
No national parks or conservation reserves occur within 10km of the site. Nationally Important Wetlands
include:
•
•
Herbert River Floodplain – the site is within the Herbert River Floodplain; an area of 44 523 ha extending
approximately 36 km along the coast of Halifax bay and Hinchinbrook Channel, and up to 33km inland.
Hinchinbrook Channel - occurs downstream of the site (via the Seymour River). It is a 42km long drowned
valley between the mainland and Hinchinbrook Island, including extensive areas of mangroves and sea
grass
TMR will comply with the provisions for exemption from a Riverine Protection Permit, as listed previously in
Section 3.1(a) above. By undertaking these preventative measures, and considering the small scale of the
project, it is not anticipated that the project will have any impacts on the World Heritage values of the Great
Barrier Reef or Queensland Wet Tropics World Heritage properties.
3.3 (k) Tenure of the action area (e.g freehold, leasehold)
The project will occur primarily within the existing footprint of the Bruce Highway and adjacent Unallocated
state land associated with Arnot Creek, however, minor portions of the works will be undertaken on the
Freehold properties:
• 1/RP732874; and
• 6/RP719840
3.3 (l) Existing land/marine uses of area
The proposed footprint does not impact any existing uses for the site. The majority of the area within the
footprint is regularly slashed road reserve, and an 11kV powerline is situated within this clear zone. Sugar cane
farming occurs immediately adjacent to the site. A small area of sugar cane will be impacted by the temporary
works, and this has been negotiated with the land owner.
3.3 (m) Any proposed land/marine uses of area
There are no proposed uses for this land apart from upgrades to the Bruce Highway
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 5 of 16
4 Environmental outcomes
Provide descriptions of the proposed environmental outcomes that will be achieved for matters of national environmental
significance as a result of the proposed action. Include details of the baseline data upon which the outcomes are based,
and the confidence about the likely achievement of the proposed outcomes. Where outcomes cannot be identified or
committed to, provide explanatory details including any commitments to identify outcomes through an assessment process.
If a proposed action is determined to be a controlled action, the Department may request further details to enable
application of the draft Outcomes-based Conditions Policy 2015 and Outcomes-based Conditions Guidance 2015
(http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/consultation/policy-guidance-outcomes-based-conditions), including about
environmental outcomes to be achieved, details of baseline data, milestones, performance criteria, and monitoring and
adaptive management to ensure the achievement of outcomes. If this information is available at the time of referral it
should be included.
General commitments to achieving environmental outcomes, particularly relating to beneficial impacts of the proposed
action, CANNOT be taken into account in making the initial decision about whether the proposal is likely to have a
significant impact on a matter protected under the EPBC Act. (But those commitments may be relevant at the later
assessment and approval stages, including the appropriate level of assessment, and conditions of approval, if your proposal
proceeds to these stages).
As previously described in Section 3 above, and in particular Section 3.1 (d), the primary Matters of National
Significance potentially occurring on site are the Endangered Southern Cassowary and Mahogany Glider. An
Ecological Assessment was undertaken (Appendix 1), which showed that:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
No threatened plant species were detected on site and no species are considered likely to occur.
The existing highway is an existing barrier to Mahogany gliders, and tree heights and glide angles
demonstrate that connectivity does not currently exist.
The 5.38ha patch of vegetation on the eastern side of the highway does not connect to suitable
habitat, is too small to support mahogany gliders and glider habitat values are substantially reduced by
rainforest regrowth. Therefore impacts on the eastern side of the highway will not have an impact on
Mahogany gliders.
Vegetation on the west side of the road reserve is connected to Girringun National Park, which has a
known Mahogany glider population. However, this vegetation does not form part of a corridor, only has
habitat for a limited number of individuals and is also altered by rainforest encroachment. Impacts on
this western side of the highway will be avoided, so no impact on the gliders are expected to occur.
Arnot Creek is known to be utilised as a corridor by cassowaries, though the frequency of use is likely
to be low.
The proposed action involves the construction or upgrade of a road in a watercourse within, adjacent
or linking between areas of potential cassowary habitat, and in accordance with the Significant Impact
Guidelines for Cassowaries (DEWHA 2010), the proposed action is possibly a Significant Impact.
Mitigation measures (Described in Section 5 below) will ensure improved opportunities for cassowary
crossing of the highway, including improved dry passage underpass for cassowaries and strategic
revegetation with known cassowary food plants.
5 Measures to avoid or reduce impacts
Note: If you have identified alternatives in relation to location, time frames or activities for the proposed action at Section
2.3 you will need to complete this section in relation to each of the alternatives identified.
Provide a description of measures that will be implemented to avoid, reduce, manage or offset any relevant impacts of the
action. Include, if appropriate, any relevant reports or technical advice relating to the feasibility and effectiveness of the
proposed measures.
For any measures intended to avoid or mitigate significant impacts on matters protected under the EPBC Act, specify:
• what the measure is,
• how the measure is expected to be effective, and
• the time frame or workplan for the measure.
Examples of relevant measures to avoid or reduce impacts may include the timing of works, avoidance of important habitat,
specific design measures, or adoption of specific work practices.
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 6 of 16
Provide information about the level of commitment by the person proposing to take the action to achieve the proposed
environmental outcomes and implement the proposed mitigation measures. For example, if the measures are preliminary
suggestions only that have not been fully researched, or are dependent on a third party’s agreement (e.g. council or
landowner), you should state that, that is the case.
Note, the Australian Government Environment Minister may decide that a proposed action is not likely to have significant
impacts on a protected matter, as long as the action is taken in a particular manner (section 77A of the EPBC Act). The
particular manner of taking the action may avoid or reduce certain impacts, in such a way that those impacts will not be
‘significant’. More detail is provided on the Department’s web site.
For the Minister to make such a decision (under section 77A), the proposed measures to avoid or reduce impacts must:
• clearly form part of the referred action (for example, be identified in the referral and fall within the responsibility of the
person proposing to take the action),
• be must be clear, unambiguous, and provide certainty in relation to reducing or avoiding impacts on the matters
protected, and
• must be realistic and practical in terms of reporting, auditing and enforcement.
More general commitments (e.g. preparation of management plans or monitoring) and measures aimed at providing
environmental offsets, compensation or off-site benefits CANNOT be taken into account in making the initial decision about
whether the proposal is likely to have a significant impact on a matter protected under the EPBC Act. (But those
commitments may be relevant at the later assessment and approval stages, including the appropriate level of assessment,
if your proposal proceeds to these stages).
Measures to limit impacts on Matters of National Environmental Significance are divided into the separate
categories of Avoid, Reduce, Enhance, Manage and Offset. All works undertaken will be in compliance with
Main Roads Specifications and Technical Standards, including Environmental Management (MRTS51), Erosion
and Sediment Control (MRTS52), Landscape & Revegetation Works (MRTS16) and Earthworks (MRTS04). An
Environmental Management Plan will be prepared for the site, including the following recommendations to
sufficiently avoid, reduce, or manage the impacts of the project.
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 7 of 16
Table 3: Key Mitigation Measures for matters of national Environmental Significance (MNES)
MNES
AVOID
Cassowaries,
Negative impact
Vegetation
Clearing
World Heritage
sites - Great Barrier
Reef World
Heritage Area and
Wet Tropics World
Heritage area
Mahogany glider
Vegetation
Clearing
Proposed Mitigation Measure
Only the vegetation required to be cleared for construction and operation of the proposed works will be
undertaken. All efforts have been made during the design phase of this project to limit vegetation
removal while still ensuring the necessary geometrics for the road curvature are preserved to ensure
public safety. TMR have negotiated with Ergon Energy to retain a powerpole between the highway and
the proposed side track, which substantially reduces the footprint, clearing area and avoids impact on
mature developed riparian vegetation along Arnot Creek.
Effectiveness: A TMR clearance plan, included as part of the construction contract, is considered to be
an effective and auditable measure to control unnecessary vegetation clearance.
To avoid any potential impacts on mahogany gliders, vegetation clearing will be limited to the eastern
side and impacts on vegetation on the western side will be avoided.
Timeframe
Pre-construction –
construction
Pre-construction –
construction
Where possible remnant vegetation will be retained. Approvals are required for clearing within Freehold
and watercourse land and no vegetation clearing may occur outside of permit areas.
Effectiveness: We have demonstrated that there is currently no potential for mahogany gliders to
access the eastern side, so limiting impacts to that area avoids impacts on mahogany gliders.
REDUCE
Cassowaries,
Limit vegetation
clearing
World Heritage
sites - Great Barrier
Reef World
Heritage Area and
Wet Tropics World
Heritage area
Clearing will not occur until all relevant permits have been obtained.
Pre-construction –
construction
Clearing will be in line with the operational needs and in accordance with the Environmental Management
Plan and Site Based Management Plan.
Clearing of native vegetation will only occur within the permitted footprint area. This will be effective as it
minimizes the total area of disturbance and allows a greater area of habitat to be retained.
Negotiation with Ergon allows us to relocate the 11kV power line temporarily, allowing for a 5m clearing
instead of the usual 10m clearances. This reduces the width of clearing on the eastern side by 5 metres.
Negotiations also allowed the retention of a central power pole between the highway and side track.
Effectiveness: The reduced power line clearance and retention of an existing power pole location allows
us to significantly reduce vegetation clearing, particularly on riparian vegetation on Arnot Creek.
ENHANCE
Cassowaries
Improved
cassowary
underpass
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
There will be significant improvements for cassowary passage as a result of this project. Although there is
more than 3m space under the existing Arnot Creek Bridge, the existing dry passage for cassowaries
along the rock apron is only 1.4m. Although there was evidence of other fauna (for example, wallabies,
bandicoots) utilising the dry passage, the available dry passage is insufficient for cassowaries which stand
1.5-2m tall. Currently any cassowaries using the underpass would need to wade through the water.
Page 1 of 16
Construction
The new bridge will incorporate a dry passage ledge under the new bridge, in accordance with the design
parameters and principles outlined in the Fauna Sensitive Road Design (DMR 2000, DTMR 2010). A
review of relevant literature and recommendations supporting this cassowary underpass are provided in
Appendix 2.
Effectiveness: Although current information suggests that this area is used infrequently by cassowaries,
the proposed underpass is a significant improvement on the existing design, and based on successful
cassowary underpasses elsewhere in the wet tropics.
MANAGE
World Heritage
sites - Great Barrier
Reef World
Heritage Area and
Wet Tropics World
Heritage area
World Heritage
sites - Great Barrier
Reef World
Heritage Area and
Clearing around
watercourses
Riverine protection
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Within 10m of a watercourse, vegetation within the clearance zones will be cleared by hand, cut as close
as possible to the ground and stumps retained in the ground in order to maintain bank stability. Low
growing species will be retained where possible also the watercourses.
Effectiveness: This method will avoid soil disturbance, effectively reducing sediment input into the
watercourse.
Measures to reduce impacts will include those required by the Riverine Protection Permit exemption
conditions described in the DNRM document ‘Riverine protection permit exemption requirements’
(WSS/2013/726 Version 1.01 endorsed 2014):
Page 2 of 16
Construction
Construction – Post
construction
Wet Tropics World
Heritage area
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
All fauna
Managing fauna
on site
The extent of the area required to carry out the permitted activity must be limited to the
minimum area necessary to reasonably carry out the works.
Sediment and erosion controls must be used.
All areas of disturbed bed and banks must be stabilised to protect against erosion.
All fill placed must be free from contamination (e.g. weeds seeds, oils, chemicals and other
contaminants).
Disturbed banks must be returned to a profile similar to the pre-disturbance condition.
Natural stream bed controls or features that create natural waterholes (e.g. riffles, logs,
sediment or rock bars) must not be lowered or removed.
Any excavated material that is not removed as waste must be spread evenly within the bed and
banks of the watercourse so that it does not interfere with the flow of water.
All fill placed in the bed of the stream must not redirect flow into an adjacent bank.
Access tracks or crossings must not interfere with the low flow of water.
The invert of culverts or the deck height of a splash through crossing must be placed at or
below bed level.
All culverts placed within the watercourse must be aligned with the stream channel and placed
as close to the centre of the watercourse channel as practical.
All culverts placed within the watercourse must be of a sufficient size to ensure uninterrupted
low flows and minimise the occurrence of blockage of culverts caused by flood-borne debris.
Constructed access tracks (e.g. culverts or splash through crossings) must be provided with a
scour apron and cut off wall on the downstream side sufficient to prevent bed erosion.
Effectiveness: These conditions will be included as part of the construction contract documents, and
implemented through the construction EMP. They are considered to be an effective and auditable
measure to control unnecessary impacts on hydrology or water quality.
It is recommended that areas to be cleared should be surveyed by a spotter/catcher or ecologist (DEHP
approved) within 24 hours prior to clearing. Prior to clearing habitat trees should be clearly marked and
retained during the clearing phase until fauna has had the opportunity to move into nearby habitat.
During clearing habitat trees could be gently disturbed (e.g. by bumping with machinery or knocking with
a hammer) to warn residents of impeding clearing and encourage them to move to alternative habitat.
During clearing spotter/catchers or an ecologist can ensure disturbed and/or injured animals are
appropriately managed.
Microbats and fairy martins found to be inhabiting the bridge or culvert will be managed in accordance
with the ‘Species Management Plan for Colonial Nesting Species’; which will be developed as an approved
Species Management Plan (SMP) under section 332(5) of the Nature Conservation (Wildlife Management)
Regulation 2006.
Appropriate traffic management will be implemented during construction and operation of the side track.
All highway traffic will be restricted to a designated side track with a maximum speed limit of 60km/hr.
Signs will be erected to notify of speed limits and the potential presence of wildlife.
Should an animal be found injured, a DEHP Officer will be contacted immediately, and arrangements will
be made to ensure the animal can be cared for by an appropriately trained and qualified wildlife carer.
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 3 of 16
Pre-construction –
construction
Cassowaries,
World Heritage
sites - Great Barrier
Reef World
Heritage Area and
Wet Tropics World
Heritage area
Post-clearing
rehabilitation and
vegetation
management
Effectiveness: These measures are expected to be effective, will be conditioned in the construction
contract documents, and implemented through the construction EMP.
As most of the vegetation clearing will be undertaken to provide the necessary safety clearances for
temporary infrastructure, these cleared areas will be actively revegetated post-construction. Revegetation
will be undertaken over an area of 3,357m2 (0.34ha) with the requirement that only local provenance
native species can be used. A revegetation management plan is provided in Appendix 3.
Natural regeneration will be supplemented with active revegetation using known local native cassowary
food plants at the entrance to the cassowary underpass. Low growing plants will be selectively used in
proximity to the powerlines, and natural regrowth selectively managed to remove tall growing tree
species from within the 10m 11kV powerline clearance areas. Of the 3,357m2 of revegetation, 952m2 will
be restricted to low growing species (<4m tall) to ensure the necessary clearances from the powerlines.
Invasive weeds will also be selectively managed within the rehabilitation area.
Effectiveness: These conditions will be included as part of the construction contract documents, and
implemented through the construction EMP. The measure will help reduced edge impacts on retained
vegetation, reduce weed spread, provide food resources for cassowaries and assist in encouraging
cassowary use of the underpass.
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 4 of 16
Post-construction
General environmental management controls for the site as a whole will inform the Planning and Construction
Environmental Management Plans for the project:
• Site inductions to be undertaken by all people working/ entering the site
• Ensure signage is in place to protect habitat areas outside of the construction zone
• Erect signage in areas to alert and educate the public on essential fauna/flora
habitat post construction
• Ensure toolbox talks incorporate the significance of threatened species and their
habitat on site
• Ensure the availability of information sheets for threatened species and their habitat
• Avoid night-time construction work if possible
• A buffer zone around construction should be clearly delineated
• Implement a Weed Management Plan for the site (this should include a wash down
area and weed control through both chemical and mechanical means)
• Ensure appropriate erosion control measures are in place
• Ensure all rubbish (especially food articles) are removed from site regularly
• Ensure speed limits are enforced on site during construction to reduce collisions
with wildlife
• Ensure vehicles on site comply with machinery requirements to avoid elevated noise
pollution
• Ensure vehicles use only approved tracks within and around the construction site
• A project Review of Environmental Factors will be completed to ensure environmental risks are
appropriately planned for
• A project specific Environmental Management Plan will be completed to ensure construction activities
manage the risks identified within the Review of Environmental Factors
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 1 of 16
6 Conclusion on the likelihood of significant impacts
Identify whether or not you believe the action is a controlled action (ie. whether you think that significant impacts on the
matters protected under Part 3 of the EPBC Act are likely) and the reasons why.
6.1 Do you THINK your proposed action is a controlled action?
√
No, complete section 5.2
Yes, complete section 5.3
According to the clearing thresholds stipulated in ‘Significant impact guidelines for the endangered southern
cassowary (Casuarius casuarius johnsonii) Wet Tropics population’ (DEWHA 2010), the proposed action is
considered likely to have a significant impact on cassowaries, which is a matter of national environmental
significance. We believe that this referral contains adequate supporting information and suitable recommended
mitigation measures that an assessment can be made based on referral information.
We do not believe that the proposed action will have any significant impact on any other matters of National
Significance.
6.2 Proposed action IS NOT a controlled action.
Specify the key reasons why you think the proposed action is NOT LIKELY to have significant impacts on a matter protected
under the EPBC Act.
According to the clearing thresholds stipulated in ‘Significant impact guidelines for the endangered southern
cassowary (Casuarius casuarius johnsonii) Wet Tropics population’ (DEWHA 2010), an action that involves the
construction or upgrade of a road in a watercourse within, adjacent or linking between areas of potential
cassowary habitat, is possibly a Significant impact. The threshold for significant clearing in this location would
be ‘any clearing’ (DEWHA 2010).
Although the proposed action exceeds the zero clearing threshold stipulated in the Significant impact guidelines
for cassowaries (DEWHA 2010), the proposed action is being undertaken in a site where cassowaries are seen
infrequently, and is likely to be used only seasonally or following extreme events.
The primary impact predicted on MNES relates to connectivity for cassowaries, so by installing a dedicated
cassowary underpass (Appendix 2) and revegetating the cleared area with cassowary food plants (Appendix 3)
should negate any long term impacts and will improve access and forage opportunities for cassowaries in the
long term.
As described in the attached Ecological Assessment Report (Appendix 1), we do not believe that the proposed
action will have any significant impact on any other Matters of National Significance.
6.3 Proposed action IS a controlled action
Type ‘x’ in the box for the matter(s) protected under the EPBC Act that you think are likely to be significantly impacted.
(The ‘sections’ identified below are the relevant sections of the EPBC Act.)
Matters likely to be impacted
World Heritage values (sections 12 and 15A)
National Heritage places (sections 15B and 15C)
Wetlands of international importance (sections 16 and 17B)
Listed threatened species and communities (sections 18 and 18A)
Listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A)
Protection of the environment from nuclear actions (sections 21 and 22A)
Commonwealth marine environment (sections 23 and 24A)
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 2 of 16
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (sections 24B and 24C)
A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development
(sections 24D and 24E)
Protection of the environment from actions involving Commonwealth land (sections 26 and 27A)
Protection of the environment from Commonwealth actions (section 28)
Commonwealth Heritage places overseas (sections 27B and 27C)
Specify the key reasons why you think the proposed action is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the matters
identified above.
Not applicable
7 Environmental record of the responsible party
NOTE: If a decision is made that a proposal needs approval under the EPBC Act, the Environment Minister will also decide
the assessment approach. The EPBC Regulations provide for the environmental history of the party proposing to take the
action to be taken into account when deciding the assessment approach.
Yes
7.1
Does the party taking the action have a satisfactory record of responsible
environmental management?
No
√
Provide details
TMR North Queensland Region’s (Townsville office) record of responsible
environmental management is reflected in the referral process of its major projects.
TMR, Townsville office, has been responsible for the delivery of major Bruce Highway
upgrade projects such as Corduroy Creek to Tully High School (Referral Number:
2006/2967), Cardwell Range (Referral Number: 2008/4665), Townsville Port Access
Road (Referral Number: 2003/1011) and Townsville Ring Road Stage 4 (Referral
Number: 2012/6562).
Compliance to the EPBC Act and conditions within the approval notices indicates a
record of responsible environmental management.
TMR as a whole has recognised a need for environmental compliance as part of its
core business, having an established an Environmental Management System, compliant
to ISO14001:2004. The Environment and Heritage Services team in the TMR
Townsville office has as standard a process of recording and documenting
environmental aspects for each project, and providing best management practice
advice and specifications for each project delivered in line with the department’s
Environmental Services Unit.
7.2
Has either (a) the party proposing to take the action, or (b) if a permit has been
applied for in relation to the action, the person making the application - ever been
subject to any proceedings under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law for the
protection of the environment or the conservation and sustainable use of natural
resources?
√
If yes, provide details
TMR, Townsville office, has never been subject to any proceedings under
Commonwealth, State or local law for the protection of the environment or the
conservation and sustainable use of natural resources.
7.3
If the party taking the action is a corporation, will the action be taken in accordance
with the corporation’s environmental policy and planning framework?
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 3 of 16
√
If yes, provide details of environmental policy and planning framework
TMR as a whole operates under the guiding principles of its Environmental Policy. This
policy ensures that Main Roads manages road impacts on natural, human and cultural
environments by:
• Meeting statutory obligations of all relevant environmental and heritage
legislation as a minimum standard.
• Considering the effects on stakeholders and long-term relationships when
carrying out statutory obligations, and seeking feedback on our performance.
• Acting as a good government agency and adopting a proactive approach to
environmental and heritage management.
• Improving awareness of environmental and heritage management processes,
standards and responsibilities among Main Roads’ employees and contractors.
• Ensuring Main Roads approach to the management of environmental and
heritage impacts embrace the hierarchy of “avoid, minimise and mitigate” in a
financially feasible manner.
TMR currently operates under an Environmental Management System (EMS) developed
to meet best management practice in environmental performance. The EMS system
has been designed on the basis of ISO14001:2004, Environmental Management
Systems but it is not currently certified. This system centralises State based
environment and cultural heritage management processes to achieve a level of
consistency and transferability in documentation, processes and management
procedures.
Environmental Management Processes comply with an internal document
“Environmental Processes Manual” (2013), which integrates environmental risk
assessment and impact management to ensure the quality and consistency of
environmental assessment and management processes within the department.
7.4
Has the party taking the action previously referred an action under the EPBC Act, or
been responsible for undertaking an action referred under the EPBC Act?
Provide name of proposal and EPBC reference number (if known)
The Townsville office of TMR North Queensland Region (formerly Northern Region
office) specifically have completed the following referrals:
• Mt Raglan and Orange Tree Dam Hill Quarries – Referral Number 2001/408
• Townsville Ring Road Section 1 – Referral Number 2001/531
• Townsville Port Access Road – Referral Number 2003/1011
• Bruce Highway, Corduroy Creek to Tully – Referral Number 2006/2967
• Bruce Highway, Cardwell Range – Referral Number 2008/4665
• Townsville Ring Road Stage 4 (Referral Number: 2012/6562
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 4 of 16
√
8 Information sources and attachments
(For the information provided above)
8.1 References
•
•
List the references used in preparing the referral.
Highlight documents that are available to the public, including web references if relevant.
Ball, D. (2004). Distribution and Habitat of the Water Mouse, Xeromys myoides Thomas, 1889 (Rodentia:
Muridae) in Intertidal Areas of Central Eastern Queensland. In: Memoirs of the Queensland Museum. 49:2.
Brisbane.
Barrett, G., Silcocks, A., Barry, S., Cunningham, R. & Poulter, R. (2003). The New Atlas of Australian Birds.
Birds Australia, Melbourne.
Barry, S. (2005). Appendix 1: Wetland Management Profile: Coastal wet heath/sedgeland wetlands. Description
and conservation status of Queensland's coastal wet heath/sedgeland wetland regional ecosystems
(REs). Ecosystem Conservation Branch, EPA.
Benwell, A.S. (1994). Swamp Orchids - Phaius australis, Phaius tancarvilleae Recovery Plan. Hurstville: NSW
NPWS.
Blakers, M., Davies, S.J.J.F. and Reilly, P.N. (1984). The Atlas of Australian Birds. Melbourne University Press,
Melbourne.
Calvert G.A. (2015) Arnot Creek Ecological Assessment Report. Internal report to Department of Transport &
Main Roads
Calvert, G.A., Lokkers, C. and Cumming, R. (2005) Rare and Threatened Plants of the Townsville –
Thuringowa Region. Coastal Dry Tropics Landcare Inc., Townsville.
Churchill, S. (2008) Australian Bats (2nd Edition). Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest.
Curtis LK, McDonald K, Kyne P and Dennis, AJ. (2012) Queensland’s Threatened Animals: Calling it Quits?
CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.
Department of Environment (2013) Matters of National Environmental Significance Significant impact guidelines
1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Department of Environment (2015a). Cajanus mareebensis in Species Profile and Threats Database,
Department of the Environment, Canberra. Accessed online: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgibin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=8635
Department of Environment (2015b) Genoplesium tectum in Species Profile and Threats Database,
Department of the Environment, Canberra. Accessed online: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgibin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=55130
Department of Environment (2015c). Lindsaea pulchella var. blanda in Species Profile and Threats Database,
Department of the Environment, Canberra. Accessed online: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgibin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=20842
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 5 of 16
Department of Environment (2015d). Streblus pendulinus in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department
of the Environment, Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/cgibin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=21618
Department of Environment (2015e). Litoria dayi— Australian Lace-lid in Species Profile and Threats Database,
Department of the Environment, Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/cgibin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=86707
Department of Environment (2015f). Litoria rheocola— Common Mistfrog. in Species Profile and Threats
Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/cgibin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=1802
Department of Environment (2015g). Egernia rugosa— Yakka Skink. in Species Profile and Threats Database,
Department of the Environment, Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/cgibin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=1420
Department of Environment (2015h). Casuarius casuarius johnsonii— Southern Cassowary (Australian),
Southern Cassowary. in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra.
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=25986
Department of Environment (2015i). Erythrotriorchis radiatus— Red Goshawk. in Species Profile and Threats
Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/cgibin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=942
Department of Environment (2015j). Poephila cincta cincta— Black-throated Finch (southern). in Species
Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment,
Canberra.http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=64447
Department of Environment (2015k). Rostratula australis— Australian Painted Snipe. in Species Profile and
Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra.http://www.environment.gov.au/cgibin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=77037
Department of Environment (2015l) Tyto novaehollandiae kimberli— Masked Owl (northern). in Species Profile
and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra.http://www.environment.gov.au/cgibin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=26048
Department of Environment (2015m) Dasyurus hallucatus— Northern Quoll. in Species Profile and Threats
Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/cgibin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=331
Department of Environment (2015n) Dasyurus maculatus gracilis— Spotted-tailed Quoll or Yarri (North
Queensland subspecies). in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment,
Canberra.http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=64475
Department of Environment (2015o) Hipposideros semoni— Semon's Leaf-nosed Bat, Greater Wart-nosed
Horseshoe-bat. ). in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra.
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=180
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 6 of 16
Department of Environment (2015p) Petaurus gracilis— Mahogany Glider. ). in Species Profile and Threats
Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/cgibin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=26775
Department of Environment (2015q) Phascolarctos cinereus (combined populations of Qld, NSW and the ACT)
— Koala. in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra.
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=85104
Department of Environment (2015r) Pteropus conspicillatus— Spectacled Flying-fox. in Species Profile and
Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/cgibin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=185
Department of Environment (2015s) Rhinolophus robertsi— Large-eared Horseshoe Bat, Greater Large-eared
Horseshoe Bat. in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra.
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=87639
Department of Environment (2015t) Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus— Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat. in
Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra.
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=66889
Department of Environment (2015t) Xeromys myoides— Water Mouse, False Water Rat, Yirrkoo. in Species
Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra.
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=66
Department of Environment (2015u) Ardea modesta— Eastern Great Egret. in Species Profile and Threats
Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/cgibin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=82410
Department of Environment (2015v) Ardea ibis— Cattle Egret. in Species Profile and Threats Database,
Department of the Environment, Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/cgibin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=59542
Department of Environment (2015w) Gallinago hardwickii— Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe. in Species
Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra.
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=863
Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) (2010) National recovery plan for the
spectacled flying fox Pteropus conspicillatus. Report to the Department of Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Population and Communities, Canberra.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2010) Significant impact guidelines for
the endangered southern cassowary (Casuarius casuarius johnsonii) Wet Tropics population. Nationally
threatened species and ecological communities EPBC Act policy statement 3.15.
https://www.environment.gov.au/resource/significant-impact-guidelines-endangered-southern-cassowarycasuarius-casuarius-johnsonii
Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) (2014) Riverine protection permit exemption
requirements WSS/2013/726 Version 1.01
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 7 of 16
Department of Transport and Main Roads (2010) Fauna Sensitive Road Design Manual Vol.2 Ch.6: Measures
to achieve fauna sensitive roads. http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/business-industry/Technical-standardspublications/Fauna-Sensitive-Road-Design-Volume-2.aspx
Hacker J.B. (1990) A guide to herbaceous and shrub legumes of Queensland. University of Queensland Press,
St Lucia
Higgins, P.J. (ed.) (1999). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Volume Four – Parrots to
Dollarbird. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
Higgins, P.J. and Davies, S.J.J.F. (eds) (1996). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds.
Volume Three - Snipe to Pigeons. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
Hosking, C.J. and Hero, J.-M. (2008) Rainforest frogs of the wet tropics, north-east Australia. Griffith University,
Gold Coast.
Jones, D.L. (2006) A complete guide to native orchids of Australia, including the island territories, New Holland
Australia.
Kramer, K.U., & McCarthy, P.M. (1998) ‘Lindsaeaceae’, in Flora of Australia Volume 48, ed. PM McCarthy,
ABRS/CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, pp. 228–240
Marchant, S., and Higgins, P.J. (eds) (1993) Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Volume
2: Raptors to Lapwings. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
Martin, R. And Handasyde, K. (1999). The Koala: Natural history, conservation and management. UNSW
Press, Sydney.
Moore, B.D. and Foley, W.J. (2000). A review of feeding and diet selection in koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus).
Australian Journal of Zoology 48:317-333.
Morecombe M. (2003) Field guide to Australian birds. Steve Parish Publishing Pty Ltd, Archerfield
Nielsen L. (1996) Birds of the Wet Tropics and Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Gerard Industries Pty Ltd, Bowden
SA
Pizzey G., Knight F. (1997) Field guide to the birds of Australia. Angus & Robertson : HarperCollins, Pymble,
N.S.W.
Schodde, R. and Mason, I.J. (1999). The Directory of Australian Birds: Passerines. CSIRO Publishing,
Melbourne.
Wilson, S. and Swan, G. (2010) A complete guide to reptiles of Australia (3rd Edition). New Holland Publishers,
Sydney.
Woinarski J.C.Z., Oakwood M., Winter J., Burnett S, Milne D., Foster P., Myles H., and Holmes B. (2008)
Surviving the toads: patterns of persistence of the northern quoll Dasyurus hallucatus in Queensland.
Report submitted to the Natural Heritage Trust Strategic Reserve Program, as a component of project
2005/162: Monitoring & Management of Cane Toad Impact in the Northern Territory.
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 8 of 16
8.2 Reliability and date of information
For information in section 3 specify:
• source of the information;
• how recent the information is;
• how the reliability of the information was tested; and
• any uncertainties in the information.
The technical reports commissioned to accompany this referral have been prepared by suitably experienced
and qualified environmental consultants and staff. The information used to support of this referral, including the
technical reports and surveys, was undertaken by the proponent during 2015.
The presence of cassowaries and mahogany gliders were not confirmed on site, but the presence of
cassowaries is considered likely but seasonal and intermittent where suitable access exists, and this was
supported by anecdotal evidence from local experts. Camera trapping did not show any mahogany gliders
present on site. The absence of mahogany glider on the eastern side was determined by comparing empirical
measurements across the road corridor with literature relating to the published glide angles and distances for
Mahogany gliders.
Threatened plants were surveyed for by a suitably qualified botanist. Presence/ absence of other threatened
species was based on distribution and habitat suitability.
8.3 Attachments
Indicate the documents you have attached. All attachments must be less than three megabytes (3mb) so they can be
published on the Department’s website. Attachments larger than three megabytes (3mb) may delay the processing of your
referral.
attached
You must attach
figures, maps or aerial photographs
showing the project locality (section 1)
GIS file delineating the boundary of the
referral area (section 1)
figures, maps or aerial photographs
showing the location of the project in
respect to any matters of national
environmental significance or important
features of the environments (section 3)
If relevant, attach
√
Title of attachment(s)
•
Figure 1
•
Figure 2
•
Appendix 1: ‘Arnot
Creek Ecological
Assessment Report’
Appendix 4: EPBC
Act Protected
Matters Report
√
√
copies of any state or local government
approvals and consent conditions (section
2.5)
copies of any completed assessments to
meet state or local government approvals
and outcomes of public consultations, if
available (section 2.6)
copies of any flora and fauna investigations
and surveys (section 3)
√
•
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 9 of 16
•
technical reports relevant to the
assessment of impacts on protected
matters that support the arguments and
conclusions in the referral (section 3 and 4)
report(s) on any public consultations
undertaken, including with Indigenous
stakeholders (section 3)
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 10 of 16
•
√
•
Appendix 5: Wildlife
Online Extract
Appendix 2:
‘Cassowary
underpass at Arnot
Creek’
Appendix 3: Arnot
Creek revegetation
strategy
9 Contacts, signatures and declarations
NOTE: Providing false or misleading information is an offence punishable on conviction by imprisonment and fine (s 489,
EPBC Act).
Under the EPBC Act a referral can only be made by:
•
the person proposing to take the action (which can include a person acting on their behalf); or
•
a Commonwealth, state or territory government, or agency that is aware of a proposal by a person to take an action,
and that has administrative responsibilities relating to the action1.
Project title:
9.1
Person proposing to take action
This is the individual, government agency or company that will be principally responsible for, or who will carry out, the
proposed action.
If the proposed action will be taken under a contract or other arrangement, this is:
•
the person for whose benefit the action will be taken; or
•
the person who procured the contract or other arrangement and who will have principal control and
responsibility for the taking of the proposed action.
If the proposed action requires a permit under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act2, this is the person requiring the
grant of a GBRMP permission.
The Minister may also request relevant additional information from this person.
If further assessment and approval for the action is required, any approval which may be granted will be issued to the
person proposing to take the action. This person will be responsible for complying with any conditions attached to the
approval.
If the Minister decides that further assessment and approval is required, the Minister must designate a person as a
proponent of the action. The proponent is responsible for meeting the requirements of the EPBC Act during the
assessment process. The proponent will generally be the person proposing to take the action3.
1. Name and Title:
Marissa Wise
District Director (Northern) | Northern District
2. Organisation (if
applicable):
Department of Transport and Main Roads
3. EPBC Referral Number
(if known):
4: ACN / ABN (if
applicable):
5. Postal address
6. Telephone:
7. Email:
Not Known
ABN 39 407 690 291
PO Box 1089 | Townsville Qld 4810
(07) 4421 8848
[email protected]
1
If the proposed action is to be taken by a Commonwealth, state or territory government or agency, section 8.1 of this form should be
completed. However, if the government or agency is aware of, and has administrative responsibilities relating to, a proposed action that is
to be taken by another person which has not otherwise been referred, please contact the Referrals Gateway (1800 803 772) to obtain an
alternative contacts, signatures and declarations page.
2
If your referred action, or a component of it, is to be taken in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park the Minister is required to provide a
copy of your referral to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) (see section 73A, EPBC Act). For information about how
the GBRMPA may use your information, see http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/privacy/privacy_notice_for_permits.
3
If a person other than the person proposing to take action is to be nominated as the proponent, please contact the Referrals
Gateway(1800 803 772) to obtain an alternative contacts, signatures and declarations page.
001 Referral of proposed action v August 2015
Page 11 of 16