Australia Pacific LNG Facility - Origin Energy · 2018-03-07 · Australia Pacific LNG Facility...

Australia Pacific LNG Facility

Water Mouse Management Plan

10 May 2016

301001-00752-00-EN-PLN-0015 - APLN-000-EN-V01-D-10644

AUSTRALIA PACIFIC LNG PTY LIMITED

AUSTRALIA PACIFIC LNG FACILITY

WATER MOUSE MANAGEMENT PLAN

301001-00752-00-EN-PLN-0015 - APLN-000-EN-V01-D-10644 Rev 7 - 10 May 2016

Page iii

Contents

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Purpose of the plan ............................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Plan objectives ................................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Related documents ............................................................................................................ 2

1.4 Significant impact guidelines .............................................................................................. 3

2. Ecology of water mouse Xeromys myoides ....................................................................... 4

3. Pre-clearance survey ......................................................................................................... 7

3.1 Survey approach ................................................................................................................ 7

3.2 Survey results .................................................................................................................... 7

4. Potential impacts on water mouse ................................................................................... 12

4.1 Potential impacts of the Australia Pacific LNG Project .................................................... 12

4.2 Potential cumulative impacts ........................................................................................... 16

5. Impact mitigation and management plan ......................................................................... 16

5.1 Avoidance and minimization of impacts ........................................................................... 17

5.2 Mitigation of impacts ........................................................................................................ 17

6. Residual impacts and proposed offsets ........................................................................... 30

6.1 Residual impacts .............................................................................................................. 30

6.2 Proposed offsets .............................................................................................................. 30

7. References ....................................................................................................................... 33





Page iv

Tables

Table 4.1: Potential impacts to water mouse during construction of the Australia Pacific LNG facility 13

Table 4.2: Potential impacts to water mouse during operation of the Australia Pacific LNG facility ..... 14

Table 5.1: Mitigation and management of impacts on water mouse during the construction phase of

the Project.............................................................................................................................................. 19

Figures

Figure 2-1: Potential water mouse habitat on Curtis Island in the vicinity of the Project area ................ 5

Figure 3-1: Location of 2011 water mouse survey sites .......................................................................... 8

Figure 3-2: Water mouse habitat in relation to the Project footprint pre-construction ............................. 9

Figure 3-3: Water mouse habitat in relation to the Project footprint post-construction ......................... 11

Appendices

Appendix 1 - Water Mouse Monitoring Program





Page 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

As part of the wider Australia Pacific LNG (APLNG) Project and on behalf of the APLNG Project joint

venture shareholders, Origin Energy Limited (Origin; 37.5% interest), ConocoPhillips Australia Pty Ltd

(ConocoPhillips; 37.5% interest) and China Petrochemical Corporation (SINOPEC Group; 25% interest),

ConocoPhillips Australia Pty Ltd (COPA) operates a coal seam gas (CSG) to LNG production and

marine export facility on Curtis Island near Laird Point, Queensland. The APLNG Project has a life of at

least 30 years, and is made up of three primary elements:

a) Gas fields in the Bowen and Surat Basins of south-west and central Queensland;

b) A 530km high pressure gas transmission pipeline from the gas fields to Curtis Island, near

Gladstone in central Queensland; and

c) The facility (APLNG Facility), which is ultimately to comprise four liquefaction trains each

producing (at design capacity) approximately 4.5 million metric tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of

LNG, up to 20Mtpa in total. The APLNG Facility includes gas processing plant, utilities such as

power generation and distribution and marine and ancillary facilities required to support facility

operations.

Origin is responsible for the ‘upstream’ component of the APLNG Project which includes gathering, gas

and water facilities, electrification and water treatment. ConocoPhillips is responsible for the

‘downstream’ component of the APLNG Project, which includes the development, construction,

operation and decommissioning of the APLNG Facility on Curtis Island.

The APLNG Facility is located on Lot 3 on Survey Plan 228454, Lot 3 on Survey Plan 228186 and Lot 3

Survey Plan 235971 within the Curtis Island Industry Precinct of the Gladstone State Development Area

(GSDA), approximately 13km north-west of Gladstone. The APLNG Facility is authorised by a Petroleum

Facility License (PFL 20) and Environmental Authority No. EPPG00715613 (EA), as well as Approval

No. 2009/4977 under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

(Commonwealth) (EPBC Act approval).

1.2 Purpose of the plan

This Water Mouse Management Plan seeks to achieve approval condition number 48 of EPBC

2009/4977 and was submitted to the Minister of the then Commonwealth Department of Sustainability,

Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) on 26 August 2011 in accordance with

condition 49. Approval condition 48 requires the preparation of a Water Mouse Environmental

Management Plan that must include:

a) results of a pre-clearance survey undertaken at the appropriate time and season for the

species;

b) a map of the location of potential habitat for the water mouse in proximity to the LNG plant and

ancillary onshore marine facilities;

c) measures that will be employed to avoid impacts on the water mouse or its potential habitat;

and





Page 2

d) if impacts on the water mouse or its potential habitat are unavoidable, propose offsets to

compensate for the impacts.

1.3 Plan objectives

The objectives of this plan are to:

• provide an overview of the ecology of water mouse;

• present the results of a pre-clearance survey and habitat assessment for water mouse within

the APLNG Facility area;

• provide an overview of water mouse occurrence and habitat within the APLNG Facility area on

Curtis Island and surrounds;

• identify potential environmental impacts on water mouse associated with Project infrastructure

development and operation;

• provide a management framework that enables Australia Pacific LNG to detect and mitigate

potential impacts on water mouse; and

• provide an outline of water mouse investigation and monitoring procedures and offsets

achieved.

1.4 Related documents

The following documents should be read in conjunction with this Plan:

• Construction Environmental Management Plan (APLN-000-EN-R01-D-10181);

• Operational Environmental Management Plan (ABUE-450-EN-N05-C-00001);

• Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan (APLN-000-EN-R01-D-10159);

• Stormwater Management Plan (APLN-000-EN-R01-D-00077);

• Biosecurity Management Plan (APLN-000-EN-R01-D-10175);

• Receiving Environment Monitoring Program (APLN-000-EN-V01-D-10160);

• Construction Shipping Activity Management Plan (25509-100-G01-GPT-00001);

• Operational Shipping Activity Management Plan (ABUE-450-EN-N05-C-00015);

• Environmental Offset Strategy (APLN-000-EN-R01-D-10201); and

• Monte Christo Offset Proposal (APLN-000-EN-R01-D-15326).





Page 3

1.5 Significant impact guidelines

EPBC Act policies relating to the identification, mitigation, management and assessment of impacts on

water mouse include:

• ‘EPBC Act significant impact guidelines 1.1: Matters of National Environmental Significance’;

and

• ‘Draft EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.20 - Significant impact guidelines for the vulnerable water

mouse Xeromys myoides‘ (issued in 2009) accompanied by ‘Background Paper to EPBC Act

Policy Statement 3.20 - Significant impact guidelines for the vulnerable water mouse Xeromys

myoides’ (DEWHA 2009a,b), which were replaced by ‘EPBC Act referral guideline for the

vulnerable water mouse Xeromys myoides’ in December 2015 (Commonwealth of Australia

2015).





Page 4

2. Ecology of water mouse Xer omys myo ides

Status: EPBC Act: Vulnerable; NC Act: Vulnerable.

Species description: The water mouse (or false water-rat) is a small rodent with short rounded ears

and small eyes. It reaches a maximum body length of 126mm and a weight of 64g. The fur is short

and dense and is dark grey above and white below. In Queensland adults usually have white spots on

the back. The tail is slender with few hairs and is smooth. The species has a distinctive musky odour

(Gynther and Janetzki 2008).

Distribution: The water mouse occurs in three discrete but patchily distributed populations, one in the

Northern Territory and two further populations on the east coast of Queensland, in south-central

Queensland around Mackay and in south-east Queensland between Gladstone and the Gold Coast

(Menkhorst and Knight 2004; Commonwealth of Australia 2015).

Habitat: The water mouse inhabits mangroves and the associated saltmarsh, sedgelands, clay pans,

heathlands and freshwater wetlands in close proximity to mangroves (Commonwealth of Australia

2015). In the central Queensland coast region, water mouse is only known to occur in the high inter-

tidal zone in tall, closed fringing mangrove forest comprising Yellow Mangrove Ceriops tagal and

Bruguiera species, and closed Grey Mangrove Avicennia marina forest including adjacent saline

grasslands. Within this habitat it is known to construct nests within the buttress roots of Yellow

Mangrove Ceriops tagal and Bruguiera species (Ball 2004).

On the south-western coast of Curtis Island, mangrove habitat suitable for water mouse corresponds

to Regional Ecosystem (RE) 12.1.3 (mangrove shrubland to low closed forest on marine clay plains

and estuaries). The distribution of this habitat prior to construction in relation to the Project area is

shown in Figure 2-1.

Ecology: The water mouse is a nocturnal, terrestrial carnivore and is one of Australia’s most poorly

known rodents. The species occurs in mangroves, saltmarsh, sedged lakes near foredunes and

coastal freshwater swamps. They require relatively large areas of intertidal flats over which to forage,

together with suitable adjacent areas for nest sites. Average home ranges of 0.77ha for males (less

for females) have been recorded on North Stradbroke Island (south-east Queensland) and individuals

are known to cover distances of up to 2.9km within these areas. However, home ranges vary a great

deal and animals at one site were estimated to have a home range of 3.42ha (Van Dyck 1997;

Gynther and Janetzki 2008). Home ranges may be influenced by habitat complexity and the width of

the mangrove zone (Van Dyck 1997). Although no home range studies have been carried out along

the central Queensland coast, Ball (2004) conjectures that low-density populations in the central

Queensland coast may have larger home ranges than populations further south. There is no

published information on dispersal behaviour and movements in this species.

Habitat occupancy and population density appear to be variable. Van Dyck (1997) located the species

in all trapped mangrove habitat and adjacent sedgelands on North Stradbroke Island with an average

trap success rate of 11.7%. Conversely, in the central Queensland coast region the species appears

to occur in only 25% of available habitat and generally in low numbers with trap success rates

generally below 2% (Ball 2004).

The species may fail to be detected on sites with previously known populations or captured on sites

where earlier surveys had been unsuccessful (Ball 2004; DERM 2010b). The reasons for the current

patchy distribution of the species despite the apparent availability of abundant suitable habitat remain

unclear.

Curtis Island

Laird Point

Graham Creek

CompigneIsland

Document Location: D:\GIS\Jobs\0402-003 Australia Pacific LNG Water Mouse EMP\GIS\MXDs\ReportMaps\Figure 2-1 Potential Water Mouse habitat.mxdDate: 31/03/2016 6:55:02 AM

Notes: Image sourced from Google Earth (c) 2016 Image Date 2007

Reviewed by: PLDate: 31/03/2016Drawn By: MG

LEGENDLNG Facility disturbance area

Future area to be cleared

Potential Water Mouse habitat (RE 12.1.3)

°Coordinate System: GCS GDA 1994Datum: GDA 1994

Units: Degree0 550 1,100 1,650 2,200275

Meters

at A41:47,873

© Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd. While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of thisdata, Biodiversity Assessment and Management makes no representations or warranties about its accuracy,reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and disclaims all responsibility and all liability(including without limitation liability in negligence) for all expenses, losses, damages (including indirectconsequential damage) and costs which might be incurred as a result of the data being inaccurate orincomplete in any way and for any reason.

Figure:

Title: Project:

Client:

2-1Potential Water Mouse habitat on Curtis Island in the vicinity of the Project area

Water Mouse Management Plan,Australia Pacific LNG FacilityAdvisian on behalf of Australia Pacific LNG





Page 6

Activity rhythms are constrained by the tidal cycle, with the species foraging only when intertidal

habitats are exposed between high tides at night. Foraging individuals follow the receding water out

into the mangrove zone where food resources are most productive (Gynther and Janetzki 2008).

Food for this species primarily consists of marine crustaceans, bivalves and other invertebrates.

Small amounts of plant material have been found in their stomachs, though this is thought to have

originated from their ingested prey. The species leaves distinctive ‘middens’ of prey remains usually

in hollow logs or at the base of trees (Van Dyck 1997; Gynther and Janetzki 2008; DERM 2010b).

The species often build termitarium-like mounds up to 60cm high containing a series of tunnels as well

as a nest chamber near the apex. Mounds may be free-standing, associated with hollow logs and

constructed around the bases of standing mangrove trees. Nest mounds often occupy naturally

elevated ground and utilise the bases of fallen trees or logs for support of the nest structure. The

species is also known to create burrow systems in earthen banks in the supra-littoral zone (interface of

littoral and terrestrial habitats) and in man-made structures and spoil heaps, and nest in hollow trunks

of living or dead trees. Tree cavity nests are either packed with mud or contain a mounded mud

structure, with mud plastering often also visible plugging knot holes or the ends of broken trunks and

branches. The nests, regardless of type or structure, primarily serve as diurnal refuges and

reproductive sites (Van Dyck 1997; Van Dyck and Gynther 2003; Gynther and Janetzki 2008;

Commonwealth of Australia 2016).

Knowledge of the species’ breeding biology is limited, but births apparently occur in any season

(Gynther and Janetzki 2008). Generally, there is only one sexually active male present in a nest and

nests may be used by successive generations over a number of years. Large mounds containing up

to eight individuals have been found, including juveniles, sub-adults, females and a single adult male.

Once constructed, nests are continuously added to, with larger mounds or nests having potential to

provide significant historical information about populations and habitats over time (Van Dyck 1997).

In the field, water mouse mounds may be confused with those of crustaceans; however, mound

height, the presence of fresh mud plastering and crustacean shells in the mound material may be

indicative of recent water mouse activity (Van Dyck and Gynther 2003; Gynther and Janetzki 2008).

Threats: Threats and threatening processes to water mouse include (DERM 2010b, Commonwealth

of Australia 2016):

• habitat removal and modifications;

• alteration of natural hydrology, including increased freshwater inflows, sedimentation from storm

water run-off, physical changes that modify tidal inundation and modified water levels and

salinity in tidal waterways that may impact water mouse indirectly through negative impacts

upon crustaceans, marine pulmonates and molluscs that are important food resources;

• disturbance of acid-sulfate soils, leading to habitat degradation that impacts negatively upon

crustaceans, marine pulmonates and molluscs that are important food resources;

• weed invasion;

• predation, particularly from feral predators such as foxes and feral pigs as well as from domestic

cats and dogs;

• herbicides, pesticides and oil pollution; and

• other threats, including vehicle wheel ruts, prolonged or intensive wave action from recreational

vessels, fire and degradation of habitat by feral and hard-hoofed animals such as cattle and

horses.





Page 7

3. Pre-clearance survey

3.1 Survey approach

Following the approval of the Project on 21 February 2011, a pre-clearing survey was undertaken in

accordance with Commonwealth survey guidelines over a period of four days and three nights from 1

to 4 March 2011 inclusive (BAAM 2011). The survey involved the following:

• Habitat assessment of potentially suitable water mouse habitats throughout the Project area

recording all notable habitat features including vegetation types and species composition,

presence of predator and prey species, supra-littoral banks, trees with hollow trunks, as well as

any areas of disturbance.

• Daytime searches of potentially suitable water mouse habitats throughout the Project area with

a focus on identifying potential nest sites as well as identifying prey middens. Searches were

carried out at all trapping sites, along much of the landward edge of the mangroves and along

the supra-littoral edge where this adjoined mangrove communities. Due to the dense,

impenetrable nature of the Rhizophora stylosa mangrove community, only the edges of the

community could be searched for water mouse nest sites and prey middens.

• An Elliott (Size A) trapping survey carried out at night over three consecutive nights, using 120

traps baited with fresh pilchards cut in half, yielding a survey effort of 360 trap-nights (see

Figure 3-1 for locations of trapping survey transects).

3.2 Survey results

The habitat assessment determined that:

• Remnant mangrove shrubland to low closed forest on marine clay plains and estuaries

(RE 12.1.3) in the Project area provides suitable foraging habitat for water mouse (Photo 1).

This community also provides an important linkage between larger areas of suitable habitat

elsewhere in the local landscape, notably Graham Creek to the north and the creek systems

opposite Compigne Island to the south (see Figure 2-1).

• A short section of well-defined supra-littoral bank was present at an abrupt interface between

mangrove and terrestrial habitats in the north of the Project area. Mangrove communities in the

northern and southern portions of the Project area provide medium to high value nesting

habitat, having a variety of habitat features (sand banks, fallen timber, supra-littoral banks and

closed canopy Yellow Mangrove forest) that provide suitable nesting opportunities for the

species (Ball 2004; Commonwealth of Australia 2016). The mangrove community in the centre

of the Project area provides low value nesting habitat as there are few of the required habitat

features present.

• Saltpan vegetation including grassland, herbland and sedgeland on marine clay plains

(RE 12.1.2) did not provide suitable foraging or nesting habitat for water mouse due to the

sparse vegetation cover in this habitat type in the Project area.

!!

!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!! H7H6

H5

H4H3 H2

H1

T1

T2

T5

T9

T6

T8T7

T3

T2

T4

Document Location: D:\GIS\Jobs\0402-003 Australia Pacific LNG Water Mouse EMP\GIS\MXDs\ReportMaps\Figure3-1 Location of the 2011 Survey Sites.mxdDate: 30/03/2016 10:37:09 AM

Figure:

Title: Project:

Client:



3-1Location of the 2011 Water Mouse survey sites


LEGEND2011 Trap transects

!! 2011 Habitat assessment sites


Units: Degree0 90 180 270 36045

Meters

at A41:7,888






Page 9

The daytime searches found no signs of water mouse activity (nest mounds with mud plastering,

tree hollows with mud plastering, nest burrows in the supra-littoral bank or prey middens); several

apparently old, low mound structures had no evidence of mud plastering on top of the mound or

along pathways leading into entrance tunnels that are an indication of recent water mouse activity.

Consequently, no evidence of active nesting was found.

Photo 1. Mangrove habitat in the Project area suitable for water mouse.

Photo 2. Water mouse captured in the Project area during the 2011 pre-clearing survey.

During the trapping survey, a single water mouse was trapped on the final survey night (Photo 2).

The species identity was confirmed by the Queensland Museum on the basis of a hair sample

collected from the individual. The capture of a single individual suggests either:

• water mouse is resident at low density in the vicinity of the Project area; or

• the individual was dispersing through the Project area at the time of capture.

The confirmation of water mouse presence in remnant mangrove communities (RE 12.1.3) with

intact hydrology, prey resources and natural features such as hollow logs, hollow trunks and a

supra-littoral bank suitable for the construction of nests suggests that ‘habitat critical to the survival

of water mouse’ occurs along the south-west coastline of Curtis Island; however, no evidence of

active water mouse nest structures was found. The extent of this habitat in the vicinity of the

Project area prior to construction is shown in Figure 2-1. The extent of water mouse habitat within

the Project area prior to construction is mapped in Figure 3-2 in relation to the Project infrastructure

footprint and the location of the trapped individual. Areas of retained water mouse habitat post-

construction are mapped in Figure 3-3.

For the purposes of this Management Plan, the Water Mouse Management Area (WMMA) is

regarded as the intertidal area suitable for use by water mouse as nesting and/or foraging habitat

within the APLNG Facility area on Curtis Island (Figure 3-3).

!!

Laird Point

Graham Creek

Document Location: D:\GIS\Jobs\0402-003 Australia Pacific LNG Water Mouse EMP\GIS\MXDs\ReportMaps\Figure3-2 Water mouse habitat.mxdDate: 31/03/2016 10:03:45 AM

Figure:

Title: Project:

Client:



3-2Water Mouse habitat in relation to the Project footprint pre-construction


LEGEND!! Water Mouse record

Water Mouse Habitat:Medium to High value nesting

Low value nesting

Water Mouse Feeding Habitat

LNG Facility disturbance area

Future area to be cleared


Units: Degree0 175 350 525 70087.5

Meters

at A41:15,333


!!

Roll-on, roll-off (RORO) facility

Causeway (aggregate dock and passenger ferry dock)

Materials off-loading facility (MOF)

LNG jetty 1

Document Location: D:\GIS\Jobs\0402-003 Australia Pacific LNG Water Mouse EMP\GIS\MXDs\ReportMaps\Figure3-3 Water mouse habitat postconstruction supplied image.mxdDate: 10/04/2016 4:44:52 PM

Figure:

Title: Project:

Client:

Notes: Image sourced from Client (c) 2016


3-3Water Mouse habitat in relation to the Project footprint post-construction


LEGEND!! Water Mouse record

Water Mouse Habitat:Medium to High value nesting

Low value nesting

Water Mouse Feeding Habitat

°Coordinate System: GCS GDA 1994

Datum: GDA 1994Units: Degree

0 90 180 270 36045Meters

at A41:7,902






Page 12

4. Potential impacts on water mouse

4.1 Potential impacts of the Australia Pacific LNG Project

Areas of the WMMA may be impacted upon by the construction and operation of the APLNG

Facility and associated infrastructure (Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3). Potential direct and indirect

impacts on water mouse from the construction and operation of the APLNG Facility could include:

• disturbance and/or loss of water mouse habitats during the construction of the APLNG Facility

and associated infrastructure;

• direct fatalities during the clearing of water mouse habitats for project construction;

• degradation of water mouse habitat as a result of development actions, including alteration of

natural hydrology for example increased freshwater inflows to mangroves, increased

sedimentation or change in storm-water runoff, acid sulphate soil exposure, and introduction of

weeds;

• reduced dispersal ability into adjacent habitats due to habitat fragmentation and the construction

of infrastructure in the intertidal zone that may present barriers to dispersal;

• disturbance of water mouse by noise, vibration and light spill;

• chemical control of insects and weeds using mosquitocides and herbicides, leading to a

reduction of invertebrate food availability in intertidal foraging habitats;

• increased populations of feral predators, leading to increased predation risk for water mouse;

and

• reduced access of livestock and feral horses, leading to reduced degradation of water mouse

habitats from hard-hoofed animals.

Potential impacts during construction are detailed in Table 4.1 and potential impacts during operation

are detailed in Table 4.2.

The impact of noise on water mouse, including threshold disturbance levels, is unknown. Rodents

have a different spectrum of audible sounds than humans, with maximum sensitivity at ultrasonic

frequencies around 40 kHz that are inaudible to humans (Castelhano-Carlos and Baumans 2009).

Negative effects, including impacts on stress levels, reproductive behaviour and fertility, of noise on

laboratory rats in controlled laboratory settings have been reported at ultrasonic noise exposures of

between 80 decibels (dB) SPL (Sound Pressure Level) and 120dB SPL. Ultrasonic noise levels

expected to be emitted during construction and operation have not been quantified, but ultrasonic

noise attenuates rapidly in air. Furthermore, water mouse populations are naturally exposed to

ultrasonic noise from foraging microbats, which continuously emit ultrasonic sounds of mostly

20-60kHz at very high noise level intensities of 120-140dB SPL (Surlykke and Kalko 2008). Therefore,

noise impacts on water mouse are not likely to be significant, largely due to the rapid attenuation of

the ultrasonic sounds that rodents are most sensitive to.





Page 13

Table 4.1: Potential impacts to water mouse during construction of the APLNG facility

Source of potential impacts Potential impacts

Clearing for and construction of the APLNG

Facility and associated infrastructure

Loss of some water mouse foraging habitat and potential nesting habitat through clearing of 1.9ha of

mangroves and supra-littoral vegetation, as well as fragmentation of habitat.

Direct fatality of individuals sheltering in mounds, burrows, hollow-bearing logs or tree hollows.

Docking facilities and other infrastructure

(e.g. pipeline) constructed across the

intertidal zone

Barriers to water mouse dispersal through habitat fragmentation and the construction of wall structures.

Disturbance of acid sulfate soils leading to

discharge of sulphuric acid to the marine

environment

Altered mangrove habitat ecology, leading to mangrove die-back and/or a reduction of invertebrate food

availability for water mouse in intertidal mudflats.

Soil erosion leading to increased

sedimentation in the marine environment.

Altered mangrove habitat ecology, leading to mangrove die-back and/or a reduction of invertebrate food

availability for water mouse in intertidal mudflats in the vicinity of the APLNG Facility.

Fresh water discharge to mangroves Increased inflows of fresh water (from inlet air chilling condensate discharge and point source stormwater

discharge) and stormwater-transmitted pollutants to mangroves, leading to altered mangrove ecology,

mangrove die-back and a reduction of invertebrate food availability for water mouse in intertidal mudflats.

Construction noise and vibration Disturbance leading to changes in water mouse use of adjoining intertidal habitats

Light spill Disturbance leading to changes in water mouse use of adjoining intertidal habitats

Shipping activity Pollution through spills and discarded waste leading to altered mangrove ecology.

Shoreline erosion from vessel wash affecting water mouse nesting sites.

Use of herbicides and mosquitocides Altered mangrove habitat ecology, leading to reduction of invertebrate food availability in intertidal foraging

habitats.





Page 14


Increased resources (food, shelter sites) for

feral predators (e.g. foxes, cats)

Increased risk of predation on water mouse.

Removal of livestock and construction of

boundary fencing that excludes feral horses

Reduced degradation of water mouse habitats by hard-hoofed animals (i.e. a positive impact).

Table 4.2: Potential impacts to water mouse during operation of the APLNG Facility


Docking facilities and other infrastructure

(e.g. pipeline) across the intertidal zone

Barriers to water mouse dispersal through habitat fragmentation and the presence of wall structures.

Fresh water discharge to mangroves Concentrated inflows of fresh water (from inlet air chilling condensate discharge and point source stormwater

discharge), leading to altered mangrove ecology, mangrove die-back and a reduction of invertebrate food


Increased inflows of stormwater-borne pollutants (originating from oil, fuel and product spills within the APLNG

Facility), leading to altered mangrove ecology, mangrove die-back and a reduction of invertebrate food


Operational noise and vibration Disturbance affecting water mouse use of adjoining intertidal habitats

Light spill Disturbance affecting water mouse use of adjoining intertidal habitats

Shipping activity Pollution through spills and discarded waste leading to altered mangrove ecology.

Shoreline erosion from vessel wash affecting water mouse nesting sites.

Use of herbicides and mosquitocides Altered mangrove habitat ecology, leading to reduction of invertebrate food availability in intertidal foraging





Page 15


habitats.

Increased resources (food, shelter sites) for

feral predators (e.g. foxes, cats)

Increased risk of predation on water mouse.

Boundary fencing that excludes feral horses Ongoing protection of water mouse habitats from degradation by hard-hoofed animals (i.e. a positive impact).





Page 16

The impacts of light spill on water mouse are unknown. The species is active during the night and light

spill on mangrove/mudflats at night may disturb foraging activities due to the increased visibility of

foraging water mouse to potential predators. This potential impact will be mitigated by the dense

nature of the mangrove vegetation that comprises retained water mouse habitat within the Project

area; this dense vegetation cover will effectively screen most water mouse foraging habitat from light

spill. Negative impacts of increased night-time illumination on the foraging behaviour of rodents is

mediated by predation risk; in the presence of predators, increased nocturnal illumination increases

the risk of predation and rodents modify their foraging behaviour accordingly (Brown et al. 1988, Kotler

et al. 1991, Bird et al. 2004). The clearing of eucalypt woodland vegetation for the APLNG Facility

adjacent to water mouse habitat is expected to reduce predation risk from owls, and feral animal

control measures, as outlined in the Biosecurity Management Plan (APLN-000-EN-R01-D-10175), are

expected to reduce the potential for predation risk from feral predators such as foxes. In the absence

of increased predation risk, water mouse may habituate to increased nocturnal illumination (Deniz et

al. 2003), and diffuse nocturnal illumination may even increase foraging efficiency in this visual forager

(Santos et al. 2009). Therefore, impacts of light spill on water mouse are expected to be negligible.

4.2 Potential cumulative impacts

The size and distribution of water mouse populations on Curtis Island and the adjacent mainland

remains poorly known, but the trapping of an individual in the Project area suggests the species is

likely to occur elsewhere along the Curtis Island coast (Commonwealth of Australia 2015). The

impacts of the APLNG Facility should be considered in relation to the cumulative impacts of a number

of other industrial and port infrastructure development projects that will substantially expand industrial

activity within the Port Curtis area and may impact the wider water mouse population. These other

projects that may contribute to a cumulative impact on water mouse on Curtis Island include the

following:

• Australia Pacific LNG Pipeline project;

• Queensland Curtis LNG and Pipeline projects;

• Gladstone LNG and Pipeline projects; and

• Arrow CSG LNG and Pipeline projects.

The pipeline approaches to Friend Point of the various LNG Pipeline projects will impact directly or

indirectly upon mangrove habitat in which water mouse is known to occur (QGC 2012, Commonwealth

of Australia 2015). The combined LNG facility projects (i.e. Australia Pacific LNG, Arrow LNG,

Gladstone LNG, Queensland Curtis LNG) within the Industry Precinct of Curtis Island are also

expected to impact directly and/or indirectly upon mangrove habitat in which water mouse is known to

occur (Commonwealth of Australia 2015). The principal cumulative impacts are expected to be a

direct impact of habitat loss and an indirect impact of impeded dispersal arising from the construction

of multiple solid-walled docking facilities that bisect intertidal habitat within the Industrial Precinct on

Curtis Island. The contribution of the Australia Pacific LNG Project on Curtis Island to this cumulative

impact is likely to be proportional to the direct and indirect impact of the project footprint area in

relation to the footprint areas of the other LNG projects on Curtis Island.





Page 17

5. Impact mitigation and management plan

The mitigation and management of impacts of the Project on water mouse has followed the 'avoid,

minimise, mitigate, offset' hierarchy.

5.1 Avoidance and minimization of impacts

Due to the size and scale of the Project within a relatively limited area, it has not been possible to

avoid direct and indirect impacts of the Project on water mouse habitats. The infrastructure layout was

designed to minimise the clearing of mangrove habitat suitable for water mouse; however it was not

possible to retain buffers of natural vegetation of at least 50 m from habitat critical to the survival of the

water mouse as prescribed in the referral guideline (Commonwealth of Australia 2015). Consequently,

based on the development footprint indicated in Figure 3-3, a total area of 1.9ha of water mouse

habitat was cleared for the development of the APLNG Facility infrastructure. A further two small

patches of water mouse habitat between the roll-on, roll-off (RORO) and materials offloading facility

(MOF), totalling 1.2ha, are expected to experience a localised severe indirect impact (Figure 3-3). This

localised indirect impact is defined as severe due to the fragmentation and isolation of two small

patches of habitat by solid-wall jetty structures that inhibit water mouse movement between habitat

patches that are too small to sustain a water mouse population as average home ranges require 0.77-

3.42ha of suitable habitat (see Section 2). A larger area of 13.8ha of water mouse habitat between

the MOF and LNG jetty 1 (Figure 3-3) is expected to experience a localised moderate indirect impact

from habitat fragmentation. This localised indirect impact is defined as moderate because, while the

habitat area is larger and construction of LNG jetty 1 on piles will maintain connectivity with mangrove

habitats to the south of the LNG jetty, water mouse dispersal to the south of the APLNG Facility will be

hindered by the presence of solid-wall jetty structures of the neighbouring Queensland Curtis LNG

Project (QCLNG). Additional cumulative impacts arise from activities immediately adjacent to the

APLNG Facility, namely The Narrows pipeline crossings to the north, and the QCLNG facilities to the

south. These cumulative impacts are quantified as a further 3.0ha that is expected to experience

localised moderate indirect impacts through habitat fragmentation, made up of 1.6ha to the north of

the RORO (outside of the Project area) and 1.4ha to the south of LNG jetty 1 (within the Project area).

Impacts were further minimised during construction by managing construction activities to minimise

impacts on mangrove and adjacent saltmarsh and mudflat habitat outside of the direct project

footprint.

5.2 Mitigation of impacts

The measures undertaken to mitigate potential direct and indirect impacts on water mouse during the

construction phase of the Project are detailed in Table 5.1. The measures that will be undertaken to

mitigate potential direct and indirect impacts on water mouse during the operational phase of the

Project are detailed in Table 5.2.

The construction of three docking facilities: a materials off-loading facility (MOF), causeway (including

aggregate dock and passenger ferry dock) and roll-on, roll-off (RORO) facility to the north of the main

mangrove area (Figure 3-3) may present significant barriers to water mouse dispersal along the upper

inter-tidal zone in the northern portion of the Project area. The mitigation of this impact through the

provision of underpasses in each of these structures was considered during engineering of marine

infrastructure. However this was precluded due to the expected difficulty in achieving a suitable





Page 18

foundation for the underpass and the strong likelihood that debris and sediment moved by the tides

would block any underpass. The proposed construction method involved excavation of the softer

material and then backfilling. Settlement of the intertidal marine sediments was pronounced and not

consistent, making it difficult to ensure that underpasses would remain open. The main concern was

the strong likelihood that the underpasses would either collapse or become blocked.

The access trestles for the two LNG jetties to the south of the main mangrove area will be supported

on pilings, which will allow for water mouse dispersal under the LNG jetties (Australia Pacific LNG

Construction Environmental Management Plan APLN-000-EN-R01-D-10181). However, dispersal of

water mouse to the south of the APLNG Facility is hindered by the construction of docking facilities for

other LNG projects that similarly bisect intertidal habitat and impede dispersal. As measures to

mitigate the indirect impact of habitat fragmentation and impeded dispersal on water mouse were not

feasible due to the nature of the facilities, appropriate water mouse habitat offsets have been identified

(see Section 6).





Page 19

Table 5.1: Mitigation and management of impacts on water mouse during the construction phase of the Project.

Activity Impacts Mitigation and management actions Responsibility Reporting Adaptive management

Clearing,

filling and/or

removal of

intertidal

habitat

Loss of water

mouse nesting

and foraging

habitat.

Displacement

and mortality of

water mouse.

Fragmentation

of water mouse

habitat.

Minimise disturbance area through

design and retention of majority of

mangrove habitat on site.

Implement the Environmental Offset

Strategy (APLN-000-EN-R01-D-10201)

through the Monte Christo Offset

Proposal (APLN-000-EN-R01-D-15326)

to offset the loss of water mouse

habitat as described in Section 6 of this

Plan.

Construction

Contractor; HSE

Manager

In accordance with the

requirements of the

Environmental Offset Strategy

(APLN-000-EN-R01-D-10201).


requirements of the

Environmental Offset

Strategy (APLN-000-EN-

R01-D-10201).

Ensure a fauna spotter that is familiar

with water mouse ecology is present

when clearing mangrove communities

and the supra-littoral bank. Manage

clearing in accordance with the

Construction Environmental

Management Plan – Section 7.3.2

(APLN-000-EN-R01-D-10181).

Clearing

Contractor;

Construction

Contractor


requirements of the


Management Plan –Section

7.3.2 (APLN-000-EN-R01-D-

10181).

Modify clearing practices

(e.g. revising clearing

locations) in accordance

with advice from fauna

spotter to minimise harm

to fauna.

Inform personnel of need

to maintain fauna spotter

on site during mangrove

clearing activities.

In the event a water mouse or active

nest site is encountered within the

construction footprint, a 50 m exclusion

zone will be implemented until trapping

Clearing

Contractor;

Construction

Ecologist report prepared in

the event that trapping is

undertaken to relocate water

mouse from the construction

Notify personnel of need

to remain vigilant where

water mouse is not

trapped and to remain





Page 20


is undertaken by a qualified ecologist at

or near the identified sites to trap and

relocate any individuals to the edge of

the main portion of the previously

ground-truthed water mouse habitat to

be retained (as mapped in Figure 3-3).

Contractor footprint. outside of exclusion zone

Revise construction

schedule around

exclusion zone

In the event of injury or death of a water

mouse, stop work in the immediate

area, identify the cause of injury or

death, revise procedures and report the

event. Injured individuals will be

transported to the nearest veterinary

surgery for assessment and treatment;

animals will be placed in individual cloth

bags, wrapped loosely in a towel for

padding and placed in a suitably sized

cardboard box. Should treatment and

rehabilitation be possible, the

individuals will be rehabilitated by a

qualified wildlife carer. Any dead water

mouse specimens will be immediately

frozen and sent to the Queensland

museum (c/o Collection Manager for

Mammals and Birds).

Clearing

Contractor;

Construction

Contractor

Record injury or death of

water mouse and report to

DEHP as required. Notify

Minister for Commonwealth of

injury or death within one

business day of occurrence.

Modify clearing practices

in accordance with advice

from fauna spotter before

clearing work resumes.

Provide training update to

personnel regarding water

mouse





Page 21


Docking

facilities and

other

infrastructure

(e.g. pipeline)

constructed

across the

intertidal

zone.

Barriers to

water mouse

dispersal

through habitat

fragmentation

and the

construction of

wall structures.

Pipeline crossing the intertidal zone will

be buried.

Access trestles for the LNG jetties will

be supported on piling.

Retain mangrove vegetation as close

as possible to either side of marine

facilities bisecting mangrove

vegetation.

Construction

Contractor

Maintain record of

construction schedule for

auditing purposes.

n/a

Implement the Environmental Offset

Strategy (APLN-000-EN-R01-D-10201)

through the Monte Christo Offset

Proposal (APLN-000-EN-R01-D-15326)

to offset indirect impacts on water

mouse habitat as described in Section

6 of this Plan.

HSE Manager In accordance with the

requirements of the

Environmental Offset Strategy

(APLN-000-EN-R01-D-10201).


requirements of the

Environmental Offset

Strategy (APLN-000-EN-

R01-D-10201).

Disturbance

of Acid

Sulfate Soils

(ASS)

Soil and water

contamination

from ASS

leachate

leading to

degradation of

water mouse

habitat

condition

Manage ASS in accordance with the

Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan

(APLN-000-EN-R01-D-10159) to

prevent discharge to the marine

environment.

Ensure staff and contractor training in

managing ASS.

Monitor mangrove habitat condition in

the Project area in accordance with the

Receiving Environment Monitoring

Construction

Contractor; HSE

Manager

Report ASS management in

accordance with the Acid

Sulfate Soils Management

Plan (APLN-000-EN-R01-D-

10159).

Report the results of

mangrove habitat condition

monitoring in accordance with

the Receiving Environment

Monitoring Program – Section

Where ASS discharge to

the marine environment is

found to occur,

investigate additional

mitigation options.

Include new or updated

management measures in

staff training program.





Page 22


Program (APLN-000-EN-V01-D-10160). 5.2 (APLN-000-EN-V01-D-

10160).

Soil erosion Degradation of

water mouse

habitat through

increased

turbidity and

sediment

deposition

Manage soil erosion in accordance with

the Stormwater Management Plan –

Section 3.5 (APLN-000-EN-R01-D-

00077).

Monitor mangrove habitat condition and

receiving environment water quality in



Program (APLN-000-EN-V01-D-10160).

Construction

Contractor; HSE

Manager

Report soil erosion

management in accordance

with the Construction

Environmental Management

Plan – Section 18 (APLN-000-

EN-R01-D-10181).

Repair any failures in the

soil erosion management

system as soon as

practicable to prevent

uncontrolled discharge,

erosion or scour.

Review the design of

and/or replace soil

erosion control devices in

the event of any failures

during significant rain

events and/or impacts on

mangrove ecology are

detected.

Undertake remedial work

to restore any disturbed

areas as soon as

practicable.



staff training program.

Fresh water

discharge to

Increased

inflows of fresh

water and

Manage potential pollutants in

accordance with the Construction

Environmental Management Plan –

Construction

Contractor; HSE


stormwater discharge

Review the design of the

stormwater management

system in the event that





Page 23


mangroves water-borne

pollutants to

mangroves,

leading to

degradation of

water mouse

habitat

Section 15 (APLN-000-EN-R01-D-

10181).

Manage stormwater runoff in

accordance with the Stormwater

Management Plan (APLN-000-EN-R01-

D-00077) and Environmental Authority

(APLN-000-EN-C02-D-10502, Permit

ID: CFPA08).

Monitor stormwater water-quality as

detailed in the Stormwater

Management Plan – Section 3.3

(APLN-000-EN-R01-D-00077).






Manager monitoring.


monitoring events via annual

reports on routine monitoring

and auditing activities and

results to the Gladstone HSE

Manager.

stormwater discharges

exceed permitted levels

and/or impacts on


detected.

Construction

noise and

vibration

Disturbance to

water mouse

Time high noise activities within or

adjacent to mangroves and saltmarsh

to occur during daylight hours when

water mouse are inactive.

Manage noise and vibration in

accordance with the Construction


Sections 10 and 18 (APLN-000-EN-

R01-D-10181).

Construction

Contractor

Pile driving records. Revise scheduling to

minimise high noise activities

during evening hours.





Page 24


Pile driving within or adjacent to

mangroves will only be conducted

during daylight hours, except in the

event of a pile being in an unsafe state

at dusk. In these circumstances work

may continue until the individual pile is

made safe before piling is ceased for

the evening.

Night lighting

of

construction

site

Light spill on

habitat at night

disturbing

water mouse.

Manage lighting in accordance with the


Management Plan –Section 7.3.2

(APLN-000-EN-R01-D-10181).

Construction

Contractor

Lighting design specifications,

modifications and

maintenance to be maintained

for auditing purposes.

Review effectiveness of

lighting in reducing light

spill, ensuring safe work

practices are maintained.

Shipping

activity

Pollution and

shoreline

erosion altering

mangrove

ecology

Managing shipping activity impacts on

water mouse in accordance with the

Construction Shipping Activity

Management Plan – Section 7 (25509-

100-G01-GPT-00001)

Construction

Contractor


Construction Shipping Activity

Management Plan – Sections

7 and 9 (25509-100-G01-

GPT-00001).


Construction Shipping

Activity Management Plan

– Sections 7 and 9

(25509-100-G01-GPT-

00001).

Use of

herbicides

and

mosquitocides

Altered

mangrove

habitat

ecology,

leading to

reduction of

invertebrate

food availability

Minimise use of herbicides and

mosquitocides in accordance with the


Management Plan – Section 14.3.1

(APLN-000-EN-R01-D-10181).




Construction

Contractor; HSE

Manager

Report on quantities and type

of any herbicides and

mosquitocides used on site.


monitoring events via annual

reports on routine monitoring

and auditing activities and




staff training program in

the event that impacts on


detected.





Page 25


in intertidal

foraging

habitats.



Manager.

Removal of

livestock and

boundary

fencing that

excludes feral

horses

Reduced

degradation of

water mouse

habitats by

hard-hoofed

animals (i.e. a

positive

impact).

Boundary fence designed to limit the

movement of feral horses from the

wider area.

Monitor boundary fencing to detect and

repair any damage.

Construction

Contractor

Report on any access by feral

horses to intertidal habitats

Remove feral horses from

intertidal habitats within

the LNG Facility site.

Repair any damage to

boundary fencing.

Domestic and

feral animals

Domestic/feral

animals

preying on

water mouse.

Manage in accordance with the


Management Plan – Sections 7 and 18

(APLN-000-EN-R01-D-10181) and the

Biosecurity Management Plan –


10175).

Australia Pacific LNG staff and all

contractors advised in induction not to

bring domestic animals to the site.

Individual feral pigs, horses, foxes, wild

dogs and cats found within the APLNG

Facility site will be eradicated or

removed as detailed in the Biosecurity


Construction

Contractor; HSE

Manager

Log incidents for reference in

water mouse monitoring

program and for annual

reporting to regulators.

Record the results of

monitoring events and report


Manager.

Reinforce “no domestic

pets” rule via additional

training if necessary.





Page 26


(APLN-000-EN-R01-D-10175).

Monitor the water mouse population in

the Project area (as per methods

provided in Appendix 1).

Table 5.2: Mitigation and management of impacts on water mouse during the operational phase of the Project.


Fresh water

discharge to

mangroves

Potential

change in storm

water flows and

quality to

mangroves,

leading to

degradation of

water mouse

habitat

Manage potential water quality

changes in accordance with the

Operational Environmental

Management Plan –Sections 7, 11 and

12 (ABUE-450-EN-N05-C-00001).

Manage stormwater runoff in

accordance with the Stormwater

Management Plan (APLN-000-EN-R01-

D-00077) and the Environmental

Authority (EPPG00715613, APLN-000-

EN-C02-D-10502).

Monitor stormwater water-quality as

required by the Queensland

Government Environmental Authority

EPPG00715613.


Australia Pacific

LNG Operations

Team Lead

Unauthorised stormwater

releases will be reported to the

Queensland Government

Administering Authority as

required by Environmental

Authority EPPG00715613.

Review stormwater

management processes

in the event of non-

conforming stormwater

discharge event and/or an

unauthorised effect on

mangrove ecology is

determined.





Page 27




Program (APLN-000-EN-V01-D-

10160).

Operational

noise and

vibration

Disturbance to

water mouse

Manage noise and vibration in

accordance with the Operational


Section 6 (ABUE-450-EN-N05-C-

00001).

Australia Pacific

LNG Operations

Team Lead



Management Plan –Section 6

(ABUE-450-EN-N05-C-

00001).


Operational

Environmental

Management Plan –

Section 6 (ABUE-450-EN-

N05-C-00001).

Night lighting Light spill on

habitat at night

disturbing water

mouse.

Manage lighting in accordance with the


Management Plan –Section 8 (ABUE-

450-EN-N05-C-00001).

Australia Pacific

LNG Operations

Team Lead



Management Plan –Section 8

(ABUE-450-EN-N05-C-

00001).


Operational

Environmental

Management Plan –

Section 8 (ABUE-450-EN-

N05-C-00001).

Shipping

activity

Pollution and

shoreline

erosion altering

mangrove

ecology

Managing shipping activity impacts on

water mouse in accordance with the

Operational Shipping Activity

Management Plan –Section 13 (ABUE-

450-EN-N05-C-00015).

Australia Pacific

LNG Operations

Team Lead


Operational Shipping Activity

Management Plan –Sections

14 and 15 (ABUE-450-EN-

N05-C-00015).


Operational Shipping

Activity Management Plan

–Sections 14 and 15

(ABUE-450-EN-N05-C-

00015).

Use of

herbicides

and

Altered

mangrove

habitat ecology,

Minimise use of herbicides and

mosquitocides in intertidal habitats.


Australia Pacific

LNG Operations

Team Lead

Record quantities and type of

any herbicides /mosquitocides

used on site, to enable

Post event review of

chemical types and

volumes used, to enable





Page 28


mosquitocides leading to

reduction of

invertebrate

food availability

in intertidal

foraging

habitats.



Program (APLN-000-EN-V01-D-

10160).

reporting/incident investigation

as required.

improved practices to be

deployed.

Domestic and

feral animals

Domestic/feral

animals preying

on water

mouse.

Manage solid waste and feral animals

in accordance with the Operational


Sections 8 and 12 (ABUE-450-EN-N05-

C-00001) and the Biosecurity


(APLN-000-EN-R01-D-10175).

Feral pigs, horses, foxes, wild dogs and

cats found within the APLNG Facility

site to be managed as detailed in the

Biosecurity Management Plan –


10175).

Australia Pacific

LNG Operations

Team Lead

Harm caused by domestic and

feral animals found onsite to

be reported to APLNG Facility

operational management.

Reinforce APLNG Facility

“no domestic pets”

requirements through the

implementation of Code

of Conduct Training and

general awareness

training.

Boundary

fencing that

excludes feral

horses

Reduced

degradation of

water mouse

habitats by

hard-hoofed

animals (i.e. a

Monitor boundary fencing to detect and

repair any damage.

Australia Pacific

LNG Operations

Team Lead

Damaged fencing to be

reported to APLNG Facility

operational management.

Where safe, enable the

feral horses to move from

intertidal habitats within

the APLNG Facility site.

Repair significant damage

to boundary fencing.





Page 29


positive

impact).





Page 30

6. Residual impacts and proposed offsets

6.1 Residual impacts

As detailed in Section 5.1, a total area of 1.9ha of water mouse habitat was cleared for the

development of the APLNG Facility infrastructure, representing the direct impact of the Project on

water mouse habitat. As measures to mitigate the indirect impact of habitat fragmentation and

impeded dispersal on water mouse were not feasible due to the nature of the facilities, the Project is

expected to have a severe localised indirect impact on 1.2ha of water mouse habitat between the roll-

on, roll-off (RORO) and materials offloading facility (MOF) and a moderate localised indirect impact on

a further 16.8ha of water mouse habitat. The total area of water mouse habitat experiencing

unavoidable direct and indirect impacts as a result of the Project, including the Project’s contribution to

localised cumulative impacts, is therefore 19.9ha.

No water mouse or evidence of water mouse presence was encountered during the vegetation

clearing works for the construction of the APLNG Facility, and no water mouse deaths have been

reported during the construction phase of the Project to date (Australia Pacific LNG 2012, 2013, 2014,

2015a, 2016).

Monitoring of the health of mangrove habitats has not detected any discernible impact of the Project

on mature mangrove trees, mangrove leaf litter, mangrove seedlings or crab burrow densities in

retained water mouse habitat (Australia Pacific LNG 2015b).

6.2 Proposed offsets

Queensland Curtis LNG (QCLNG), Santos GLNG (GLNG) and Australia Pacific LNG (APLNG) (the

LNG proponents) finalised contractual arrangements in 2014 for the purchase of private property and

the surrender of associated occupational permits (grazing leases) across adjoining lands known as

the Monte Christo offset area, situated on Curtis Island. The Monte Christo offset area and the Curtis

Island Environmental Management Precinct (CIEMP), were secured by the LNG proponents as

environmental offsets and total more than 25,000ha. The total area of potential water mouse habitat

within the Monte Christo offset area is 9,718ha, of which 2,951ha is allocated to the Downstream

component (i.e. the APLNG Facility) of Australia Pacific LNG (see Table 6.1).

Table 6.1: Summary of the habitat types and areas on Curtis Island represented by the Monte

Christo water mouse offset (reproduced from Water Mouse (Xeromys myoides) Habitat Report:

Monte Christo Offset (APLN-000-EN-R01-D-34551)), together with the associated offset area

allocated to offset impacts of the APLNG Facility

Offset component Water mouse habitat type Area (ha) Offset allocation

Monte Christo (Lot 4 CP860403) Potential 445.90 133.77*

State Forest and Conservation Park Potential 8,194.05 2,458.22*

CIEMP Potential 1,077.91 359.30**

Total Potential 9,717.86 2,951.29

* 90% of the one third allocated to Australia Pacific LNG

** 100% of the one third allocated to Australia Pacific LNG





Page 31

As stipulated in the Monte Christo Offset Proposal (APLN-000-EN-R01-D-15326), the approved

offset:impact ratio for water mouse is 2:1. Therefore, a 39.8ha portion of the 2,951.3ha available for

water mouse offsets in the Monte Christo Offset Proposal will be secured to offset the unavoidable

impacts of the Project on water mouse.

The management of the offset area is detailed in the Monte Christo Interim Offset Area Management

Plan (APLN-000-EN-R01-D-17824).

An additional offset action proposed by Australia Pacific LNG was to conduct a survey for water

mouse within potential water mouse habitat in the CIEMP. The results of this survey are provided in

Appendix 1.





Page 32

7. Adaptive management

7.1 Triggers and corrective actions

Should monitoring of water mouse habitats detect adverse impacts of the Project on retained water

mouse habitats, the likely cause(s) will first be identified through a review of the results of monitoring

activities outlined in Appendix 1. Once the likely cause(s) has been identified, appropriate corrective

actions will be identified in consultation with relevant experts and implemented within the timeframes

established as a part of the corrective action process.

7.2 Plan review

The Water Mouse Management Plan will be reviewed and updated pending the outcome of the

analysis of monitoring or events results.

In addition to this, review of the Water Mouse Management Plan will be undertaken as part of the

auditing and compliance procedures for the APLNG Facility.





Page 33

8. References

Australia Pacific LNG (2012). Australia Pacific LNG Environmental Offset Strategy (APLN-000-EN-

R01-D-10201) Revision 8, 2012

Australia Pacific LNG (2012). Australia Pacific LNG Downstream LNG Facility Annual Return

(EPBC2009/4977) (APLN-000-EN-R01-D-14713).


(EPBC2009/4977) 21 Feb 2012 to 20-Feb 2013 (APLN-000-EN-R01-D-16536).


(EPBC2009/4977) 21 February 2013 to 20 February 2014 (APLN-000-EN-R01-D- 24826).

Australia Pacific LNG (2015a). Australia Pacific LNG Downstream LNG Facility Annual Return


Australia Pacific LNG (2015b). Australia Pacific LNG Downstream 2014-15 Annual REMP Report

(APLN-454-EN-R01-D-41137).



BAAM (2009). ‘Curtis Island Water Mouse, Powerful Owl and Wading Bird Investigations.’ Report

prepared for URS Australia.

BAAM (2010). ‘Water Mouse survey and habitat assessment – Santos GLNG Curtis Island LNG

facility.’ Unpublished report prepared for URS Australia.

BAAM (2011). ‘Water Mouse survey and habitat assessment – Australia Pacific LNG facility.’

Unpublished report prepared for WorleyParsons on behalf of Australia Pacific LNG.

BAAM (2014). ‘Water Mouse Survey 2014 – Australia Pacific LNG Facility site, Curtis Island’.


BAAM (2015a). ‘Water Mouse Survey – Curtis Island Environmental Management Precinct, Curtis

Island’. Unpublished report prepared for WorleyParsons on behalf of Australia Pacific LNG.

BAAM (2015b). ‘Water Mouse Survey 2015 – Australia Pacific LNG Facility site, Curtis Island’.


Ball, D (2004). ‘Distribution and habitat of the false water rat, Xeromys myoides Thomas, 1889

(Rodentia: Muridae) in intertidal areas of central eastern Queensland.’ Memoirs of the

Queensland Museum, 49: 487-494.

Ball, D, Wake, J and McKillup, S (2006). ‘Point discharge of storm water runoff into a landward

mangrove community: initial investigations indicate a negative effect on keystone species

(mangrove crabs, Family: Grapsidae).’ In: L. McLeod (ed.), New Zealand Marine Sciences

Society Review 47, NZMSS, Wellington.

Castelhano-Carlos, MJ and Baumans, V (2009). The impact of light, noise, cage cleaning and in-

house transport on welfare and stress of laboratory rats. Laboratory Animals 43: 311-327.

Commonwealth of Australia (2015). EPBC Act referral guideline for the vulnerable water mouse





Page 34

Xeromys myoides. Commonwealth of Australia, December 2015.

DEC (2009). Standard Operating Procedure: Permanent marking of mammals using ear notching.

Western Australia Department of Environment and Conservation, Species and Communities

Branch.

Deniz, O, Lorenzo, J and Hernandez, M (2003). A computational mechanism for habituation in

perceptual user interfaces. In CIMCA 2003 Proceedings: 846–856. Mohammadian, M. (Ed.).

Vienna.

DERM (2010a). 'Back on Track species prioritisation framework.’ Department of Environment and

Resource Management, Brisbane. http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/wildlife-

ecosystems/wildlife/back_on_track_species_prioritisation_framework/index.html (accessed on

5/10/2010).

DERM (2010b). ‘National recovery plan for the Water Mouse (false water rat) Xeromys myoides.’

Report to Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populartion and Communities,

Canberra. Department of the Environment and Resource Management, Brisbane.

DEWHA (2009a). ‘Background paper to EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.20 – Significant impact

guidelines for the vulnerable Water Mouse Xeromys myoides.’ Department of Sustainability,

Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPAC – formerly DEWHA). Available at:

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/pubs/xeromys-myoides-background.pdf

(accessed on 5/10/2010).

DEWHA (2009b). ‘Significant impact guidelines for the vulnerable Water Mouse Xeromys myoides –

EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.20.’ Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population

and Communities (SEWPAC – formerly DEWHA). Available at:

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/pubs/xeromys-myoides.pdf (accessed on

5/10/2010).

Gynther, IC and Janetzki, H (2008). ‘Water Mouse Xeromys myoides.’ In: S Van Dyck and R Strahan

(eds.), The mammals of Australia. 3rd

edn. Reed New Holland, Sydney. pp. 664-665.

Menkhorst, PW and Knight, F (2004). A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia. Oxford University

Press, Melbourne.

O’Neill P (2009). ‘Terrestrial fauna.’ In ‘State of the environment report for Shoalwater Bay training

area 2008.’ Department of Defence. Commonwealth of Australia.

QGC (2010). ‘Environmental management plan – Water Mouse (Xeromys myoides) Revision 3.’

Submitted to Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

Available at: http://www.qgc.com.au

Santos, CD, Miranda, AC, Granadeiro, JP, Lourenço, PM, Saraiva, S, Palmeirim, JM (2009). Effects of

artificial illumination on the nocturnal foraging of waders. Acta Oecologica 36: 166-172.

Seber, GAF (1982). The Estimation of Animal Abundance, second ed. Macmillan, New York.

Surlykke , A and Kalko, EKV (2008). Echolocating bats cry out loud to detect their prey. PLoS ONE

3(4): e2036. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002036.

Van Dyck, S (1997). ‘Xeromys myoides Thomas, 1889 (Rodentia: Muridae) in mangrove communities

of North Stradbroke Island, southeast Queensland.’ Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 42:





Page 35

337-366.

Van Dyck, S and Gynther, I (2003). ‘Nesting strategies of the Water Mouse Xeromys myoides in

Southeast Queensland’ Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 49: 453-479.

Van Dyck, S and Janetzki, H (2003). ‘Artificial nesting mounds for the Water Mouse, Xeromys

myoides.’ Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 49: 480.

WorleyParsons (2010). ‘Water Mouse (Xeromys myoides) habitat assessment for the APLNG LNG

facility site, Curtis Island.’ Unpublished report for Australia Pacific LNG.





Page 36

Appendix 1 - Water Mouse Monitoring Program




301001-00752-00-EN-PLN-0015 - Rev 6C - 18 April 2016 APLN-000-EN-V01-D-10644

Page 37

WATER MOUSE MONITORING PROGRAM

The Water Mouse Monitoring Program during construction comprised three main activities:

1. Two surveys for water mouse in the Project area (January 2014 and November 2015);

2. Annual monitoring of water mouse habitat condition in the Project area; and

3. A survey for water mouse in the CIEMP (June 2015).

A survey for water mouse in the CIEMP was undertaken to assess the extent of the distribution and

population density of the species more broadly on Curtis Island. The information gained from such a

program contributes to several ‘Specific Objectives’ outlined in the ‘National recovery plan for the

Water Mouse (false water rat) Xeromys myoides.’ (DERM 2010) including:

1. Specific Objective 1: Identify habitats supporting populations of the water mouse and map

current distribution.

2. Specific Objective 2: Describe key biological and ecological features of the water mouse and its

habitat.

3. Specific Objective 3: Monitor population trends and identify and manage threats to the species’

survival.

The information may contribute to management of the species in a region where it was not previously

known to exist and provide a regional context to the recorded water mouse presence at the Australia

Pacific LNG Facility site and improve methods for identification of water mouse habitat.

The Water Mouse Monitoring Program during the operational phase will comprise two main activities:

1. Regular survey for water mouse in the Project area; and

2. Regular monitoring of water mouse habitat condition in the Project area.

WATER MOUSE SURVEY METHODS

The best practice methodology for water mouse field survey involves a combination of habitat

assessment, daytime searching and Elliot trapping (DEWHA 2009b, Commonwealth of Australia

2015). All three of these primary survey techniques will be undertaken during each water mouse

survey. Habitat assessment techniques will be used to identify the most likely habitats for detecting

water mouse presence. Daytime searching will focus on searching for nest structures (to monitor

nesting activity) and prey middens (to monitor foraging activity) (DEWHA 2009b, Commonwealth of

Australia 2015).

The most effective method for surveying water mouse within the Port Curtis area is using Elliott A type

traps. Each Elliott trapping survey will be undertaken in accordance with the survey guidelines for

water mouse (DEWHA 2009b, Commonwealth of Australia 2015) and will comprise 25 Elliott A traps

placed at 10 m intervals along each of four transects distributed across the trapping area, and set for

four consecutive nights to achieve a trapping survey effort of 400 trap nights. Any water mouse

individuals trapped will be individually marked through ear-notching in accordance with Western

Australia Standard Operating Procedure for permanent marking of mammals using ear notching (DEC

2009). Individual marking of animals will facilitate the assessment of population size and movement of

individuals via mark-recapture techniques (Seber 1982). Ear notching will also provide a small sample





Page 38

of DNA material from each individual. After discussion with Heather Janetzki, Collection Manager for

Mammals and Birds at the Queensland Museum, it has been determined that each sample will be

individually placed in a labelled vial of ethanol and submitted to the Queensland Museum (c/o

Collection Manager for Mammals and Birds) for inclusion in the museum’s specimen collection; these

specimens are made available to researchers requiring DNA material for appropriate research

projects. This activity will contribute to an investigation of genetic variation within the species,

consistent with the national recovery plan for water mouse (DERM 2010b). Radio-tracking is not

considered a feasible method for monitoring water mouse movement patterns in the Project area due

to the dense, impenetrable nature of the closed Rhizophora and Ceriops mangrove forest that

comprises the majority of water mouse habitat within the Project area; water mouse is substantially

more difficult to monitor and study in these habitats than in the more open saltmarsh habitats of south-

eastern Queensland where the most intensive studies of water mouse have been conducted (Ian

Gynther, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, pers. comm.).

The locations, frequency and methods for the monitoring of water mouse and the condition of its

habitat are prescribed in Table 1.

Table 1: Water mouse monitoring program

Location Method Frequency

CONSTRUCTION PHASE

Water mouse

within the

Project area.

Water mouse trapping survey to monitor population size and

water mouse movements, and daytime searching to monitor

foraging activity (incidence of prey middens) and nesting

activity (incidence of nesting structures).

Two surveys.

Water mouse

habitats retained

within the

Project area.

Record of water mouse habitat condition from the existing

monitoring program within all directly or indirectly impacted

habitat for water mouse, including photographic records and

noting mangrove health and invertebrate food availability in

accordance with the mangrove health monitoring program as

outlined in the Receiving Environment Monitoring Program

(APLN-000-EN-V01-D-10160).

Annually.

Mangrove

habitats in the

CIEMP.

Water mouse field survey, including habitat assessment,

daytime searching and a trapping survey.

Single survey.

OPERATIONAL PHASE

Water mouse

within the

Australia Pacific

LNG Facility

area.

Water mouse trapping survey to monitor population size and

water mouse movements, and daytime searching to monitor

foraging activity (incidence of prey middens) and nesting

activity (incidence of nesting structures).

After three

years, then

every five

years.





Page 39

Location Method Frequency

Mangrove

habitats retained

within the

Australia Pacific

LNG Facility

area.

Record of water mouse habitat condition from the existing

monitoring program within all directly or indirectly impacted

habitat for water mouse, including photographic records and

noting mangrove health and invertebrate food availability in

accordance with the mangrove health monitoring program as

outlined in the Receiving Environment Monitoring Program

(APLN-000-EN-V01-D-10160).

After three

years, then

every five

years.

WATER MOUSE MONITORING SURVEY RESULTS

The results of two water mouse monitoring surveys undertaken within the Australia Pacific LNG

Facility as well as a water mouse survey undertaken within the CIEMP in accordance with the Water

Mouse Monitoring Program are summarised in Table 2 below. The figures from the original survey

reports (BAAM 2014, 2015, 2016) showing the trapping survey locations during each of the water

mouse monitoring surveys are attached after Table 2.

Table 2: Results of water mouse monitoring surveys

Dates Location Survey effort Survey results

19–23

January

2014

LNG

Facility

Trapping survey

over 4 nights (400

trap nights)

One capture of House Mouse (Mus musculus).

(BAAM

2014)

Daytime searches

(10 hours)

No evidence of active nest sites or apparent feeding

evidence found.

Habitat

assessment

Locally extensive mangrove shrubland in good

condition; however few hollows suitable for Water

Mouse were identified. Potential Water Mouse food

resources were reasonably abundant.

22–27 June

2015

CIEMP Trapping survey

over 4 nights (400

trap nights on 4

transects covering

3.6 km)

17 captures of Grassland Melomys (Melomys

burtoni), several of which retuned to mangrove tree-

trunk hollows after their release.

(BAAM

2015a)

Daytime searches

(20 hours)

No evidence of the characteristic nesting sites for

Water Mouse found along either the supra-littoral

bank or within the upper intertidal zone. All terrestrial

burrows encountered were considered likely to be

crab burrows, with one exception that may have been

occupied by a large rodent. Numerous hollows were

identified in larger Rhizophora stylosa trees that

could potentially provide suitable nesting habitat for

Water Mouse; however none was associated with

mud plastering, a characteristic of Water Mouse





Page 40


nests in tree-trunk hollows. No apparent feeding

evidence was found.

Habitat

assessment

Extensive remnant and relatively undisturbed

mangrove shrubland to low closed forest on marine

clay plains and estuaries (Regional Ecosystem

12.1.3) in the study area provides suitable essential

habitat for Water Mouse. An abundance of potential

food sources for water mouse, including small crabs,

mudskippers and molluscs.

14–18

November

2015

LNG

Facility

Trapping survey

over 4 nights (400

trap nights)

23 captures of Grassland Melomys (Melomys

burtoni), several of which returned to mangrove tree-

trunk hollows after their release.

(BAAM

2015b)

Daytime searches

(10 hours)

No evidence of Water Mouse occupancy in the form

of mud plastering on logs or hollow mangrove trunks,

or feeding evidence (clusters of shellfish debris) was

found.

Habitat

assessment

Locally extensive mangrove shrubland in good

condition; hollowed trunks within mangroves and

hollow logs along the supra-littoral bank provide

suitable nesting options for Water Mouse. Potential

water mouse food resources (crabs, shellfish and

mudskippers) were abundant.

Monitoring of the health of mangrove habitats has not detected any discernible impact of the Project

on mature mangrove trees, mangrove leaf litter, mangrove seedlings or crab burrow densities in

retained water mouse habitat (Australia Pacific LNG 2015b).

OTHER CURTIS ISLAND WATER MOUSE SURVEY RESULTS

The results of pre-clearance water mouse surveys undertaken by Queensland Curtis LNG (QCLNG)

and Santos GLNG (GLNG) are summarised in Table 3.

Table 3: Results of water mouse surveys by other LNG proponents


14–17 November 2010

GLNG Facility Trapping survey over 3 nights (445 trap nights)

Three captures of Bush Rat (Rattus fuscipes) and four captures of juvenile Melomys sp.

(BAAM 2010)

Daytime searches No evidence of active nest sites or apparent feeding evidence found.

Habitat assessment

Mangrove shrubland (RE 12.1.3) in good condition up to 30m wide; however potential nesting habitat is marginal.

22–26 September

QCLNG Trapping survey over 2 nights (200

No captures of water mouse.





Page 41


2010 trap nights)

(QGC 2010) Daytime searches No evidence of characteristic water mouse nesting mounds or burrows in the supra-littoral bank were found. No apparent feeding evidence was found.

Habitat assessment

Narrow bands of Rhizophora stylosa low-forest (RE 12.1.3) adjacent to the shoreline which was not identified as core habitat for water mouse. Patches of Ceriops tagal also occur as well as salt couch and claypan.

22–26 September 2010

Graham Creek near pipeline

Trapping survey over 2 nights (150 trap nights)



Habitat assessment

Rhizophora stylosa low-forest (RE 12.1.3) which was not identified as core habitat for water mouse. Narrow band of Ceriops tagal along the edge of the claypan.

14–17 October 2010

Pipeline crossing & northern APLNG site

Trapping survey over 2 nights (200 trap nights)



Habitat assessment

Narrow bands of Ceriops tagal and Rhizophora stylosa low-forest (RE 12.1.3) adjacent to the shoreline which was not identified as core habitat for water mouse.

The combined survey effort of water mouse trapping surveys in suitable water mouse habitat on Curtis

Island now stands at a total of 2,555 trap-nights for one capture of water mouse, giving a trap success

rate of 0.04%. This is substantially lower than a trap success rate of 2% documented by Ball (2004) in

central Queensland where water mouse occurred in only 25% of available suitable habitat. This

contrasts with the predictable occurrences of the species in all suitable mangrove habitat areas and

adjacent areas on North Stradbroke Island in the southern Southeast Queensland Bioregion, where

the trap success rate was found to be much higher, at 11.7% (Van Dyck 1997). These results

highlight the difficulty of conducting effective monitoring of water mouse populations on Curtis Island.

Date post:	04-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phamkhanh
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Australia Pacific LNG Facility - Origin Energy · 2018-03-07 · Australia Pacific LNG Facility...

Documents