Australia Business Unit Water Mouse Management Plan - Australia Pacific LNG
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Australia Business Unit
Water Mouse Management Plan
ABUE-450-EN-V01-C-00013
This document contains proprietary and confidential information of ConocoPhillips Company.
It is not to be released or published without prior written consent of ConocoPhillips Company.
Revision Detail
Rev Number Date MOC Number Author Approver
000 28-Jan-2020 29729 S.T. J.C.
Water Mouse Management Plan
Contents
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................4
1.1. Background ...........................................................................................................................................4
1.2. Purpose and Scope ...............................................................................................................................4
1.3. Related Documents ..............................................................................................................................5
2. Legislative Framework ..................................................................................................................................6
2.1. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 .......................................................6
2.2. Environmental Protection Act 1994 .....................................................................................................6
3. Ecology and Distribution...............................................................................................................................7
3.1. Distribution within Australia and Habitat Description .........................................................................7
3.2. Local Distribution and Habitat ........................................................................................................... 10
3.2.1. Pre-clearance Survey ................................................................................................................. 10
3.2.2. Post-clearing Surveys ................................................................................................................. 16
4. Management Strategy ............................................................................................................................... 18
4.1. Operational Activities and Potential Impacts .................................................................................... 18
4.1.1. Potential Cumulative Impacts.................................................................................................... 20
4.2. Objectives and Targets ...................................................................................................................... 20
4.3. Environmental Control Measures...................................................................................................... 20
4.3.1. Avoidance and Minimisation of Impacts ................................................................................... 20
4.3.2. Mitigation of Impacts – Design and Construction ..................................................................... 21
4.3.3. Mitigation of Impacts – Operations........................................................................................... 22
4.4. Residual Impacts and Offsets ............................................................................................................ 23
4.5. Corrective Actions ............................................................................................................................. 24
5. Monitoring, Auditing and Review .............................................................................................................. 25
6. References ................................................................................................................................................. 26
List of Appendices
Appendix 1. Water Mouse Monitoring Program ............................................................................................... 28
Document Number Revision Date: Revision Number:
ABUE-450-EN-V01-C-00013 28 January 2020 000
2 of 29
Official copy located in EDMS. Unstamped, printed copies are UNCONTROLLED documents and MAY NOT BE CURRENT
Water Mouse Management Plan
List of Tables
Table 3.1: Results of pre-clearance water mouse survey, including surveys by other LNG proponents ......... 11
Table 3.2: Results of post-clearing water mouse surveys ................................................................................. 16
Table 4.1: Potential threats and threatening processes associated with operation of the APLNG Facility ...... 19
Table 4.2: Water mouse management objectives and targets ......................................................................... 20
Table 4.3: Mitigation and management of impacts on water mouse during operations ................................. 22
Table 4.4: Offset areas on Curtis Island and allocation to offset impacts of the APLNG Facility ...................... 23
Table 4.5: Corrective actions ............................................................................................................................. 24
List of Figures
Figure 3.1: Potential water mouse habitat on Curtis Island in the vicinity of the Project area ...........................8
Figure 3.2: Location of 2011 water mouse survey sites .................................................................................... 12
Figure 3.3: Water mouse habitat in relation to the Project footprint pre-construction................................... 14
Figure 3.4: Water mouse management area on APLNG Facility Land – remaining water mouse habitat........ 15
Document Number Revision Date: Revision Number:
ABUE-450-EN-V01-C-00013 28 January 2020 000
3 of 29
Official copy located in EDMS. Unstamped, printed copies are UNCONTROLLED documents and MAY NOT BE CURRENT
Water Mouse Management Plan
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
As part of the wider Australia Pacific LNG (APLNG) Project, owned by Origin Energy Limited (Origin; 37.5%
interest), ConocoPhillips Australia Operations Pty Ltd (ConocoPhillips; 37.5% interest) and Sinopec Australia
Pacific LNG Pty Limited (Sinopec; 25% interest), ConocoPhillips Australia Operations Pty Ltd (COPA) operates
a natural gas 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:
• Gas fields in the Bowen and Surat Basins of south-west and central Queensland;
• A 530km high pressure gas transmission pipeline from the gas fields to Curtis Island, near Gladstone in
central Queensland; and
• The LNG Facility (APLNG Facility), which is currently comprised of two liquefaction trains each producing
(at design capacity) approximately 4.5 million metric tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of LNG. The APLNG
Facility includes gas processing plant, utilities such as power generation and distribution and marine and
ancillary facilities required to support APLNG Facility operations.
Origin Energy Upstream Operator Pty Ltd is responsible for the ‘upstream’ component of the APLNG Project
which includes gathering, gas and water facilities, electrification and water treatment. COPA is responsible for
the ‘downstream’ component of the APLNG Project, which includes the operation and decommissioning of
the APLNG Facility on Curtis Island.
The APLNG Facility is located on Lot 3 on Survey Plan 228454, Lot 5 on Survey Plan 283963 and Lot 6 Survey
Plan 283963 (APNG Facility Land) 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).
Substantial completion of Train 1 was achieved on 30 June 2015 with LNG production commencing in
December 2015. Start-up of Train 2 occurred in 2016 with LNG production commencing in October 2016.
Substantial completion of Train 2 was achieved on 9 July 2017.
1.2. Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this Water Mouse Management Plan (WMMP) is to provide for the protection of the water
mouse (Xeromys myoides) listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act and Queensland Nature Conservation Act
1992 (NC Act). This includes identifying operational activities with potential impacts, setting objectives and
targets for conservation, implementing environmental control measures and offsets, and conducting
monitoring to improve knowledge on the condition of potential habitat and distribution of this species in the
area.
This revision of the WMMP applies to activities associated with operation of the APLNG Facility and does not
apply to construction, commissioning or start-up phase activities which were addressed in previous revisions.
The WMMP does not apply to shipping activities which are addressed under the approved Shipping Activity
Management Plan.
Document Number Revision Date: Revision Number:
ABUE-450-EN-V01-C-00013 28 January 2020 000
4 of 29
Official copy located in EDMS. Unstamped, printed copies are UNCONTROLLED documents and MAY NOT BE CURRENT
Water Mouse Management Plan
1.3. Related Documents
The following documents should be read in conjunction with this Plan:
• Operational Environmental Management Plan (ABUE-450-EN-N05-C-00001);
• Biosecurity Management Plan (ABUE-450-EN-V01-C-00009);
• Receiving Environment Monitoring Program (APLN-000-EN-V01-D-10160) and updates to this document
as approved;
• Shipping Activity Management Plan (ABUE-450-EN-N05-C-00015);
• Monte Christo Offset Proposal (APLN-000-EN-R01-D-15326).
Document Number Revision Date: Revision Number:
ABUE-450-EN-V01-C-00013 28 January 2020 000
5 of 29
Official copy located in EDMS. Unstamped, printed copies are UNCONTROLLED documents and MAY NOT BE CURRENT
Water Mouse Management Plan
2. Legislative Framework
2.1. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
The EPBC Act aims to protect matters of national environmental significance (MNES) which includes listed
threatened species such as the water mouse. A previous revision of the Department of the Environment and
Energy (DotEE) Significant impact guidelines 1.1 – Matters of national environmental significance (2013) were
referred to during the approval phase to determine if the proposed action was likely to have a significant
impact on any MNES including the water mouse. The proposed action was approved by EBPC Act Approval
2009/4977 which included specific conditions (48-49) to protect this species.
EPBC Act Approval condition 48 requires the development and implementation of a WMMP which includes:
a) results of the 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
d) if impacts on the water mouse or its potential habitat are unavoidable, propose offsets to compensate for
the impacts.
Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened mammals: guidelines for detecting mammals listed as threatened
under the EPBC Act (SEWPAC 2011), provides advice on what should be considered when planning and
undertaking presence-absence surveys where habitat suitable for a threatened species occurs, including
survey techniques and sampling effort. This guideline is relevant the Water Mouse Monitoring Program
included in Appendix 1. The survey techniques are based on the ‘Draft EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.20 -
Significant impact guidelines for the vulnerable water mouse Xeromys myoides (issued in 2009), now archived
and superseded by the Referral guidelines for the vulnerable water mouse Xeromys myoides (Commonwealth
of Australia 2015). The Referral guidelines contain ecological information important for decision-making,
advice about undertaking surveys and mitigation standards.
The National Recovery Plan for the water mouse (false water rat) Xeromys myoides (DERM 2010), provides
valuable information on the ecology, habitat, threats and management practices to improve the
conservation status of this species including documenting its distribution.
2.2. Environmental Protection Act 1994
The objective of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act) is to protect Queensland’s environment while
allowing for ecologically sustainable development. The EP Act enables an environmental authority (EA) to be
issued for environmentally relevant activities which detail conditions of approval. The APLNG Facility is
authorised by EA EPPG00715613 including condition F8 which requires the development and implementation
of a species management plan for threatened species listed under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act),
such as the water mouse. This WMMP address impacts to this species to support its survival in the wild and
provides for a net conservation benefit.
Document Number Revision Date: Revision Number:
ABUE-450-EN-V01-C-00013 28 January 2020 000
6 of 29
Official copy located in EDMS. Unstamped, printed copies are UNCONTROLLED documents and MAY NOT BE CURRENT
Water Mouse Management Plan
3. Ecology and Distribution
The water mouse is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act and Queensland NC Act. This species is a nocturnal,
terrestrial carnivore and is one of Australia’s most poorly known rodents. 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).
3.1. Distribution within Australia and Habitat Description
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).
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 3.1.
The species requires 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 2010). The reasons for the current patchy distribution
of the species despite the apparent availability of abundant suitable habitat remain unclear.
Document Number Revision Date: Revision Number:
ABUE-450-EN-V01-C-00013 28 January 2020 000
7 of 29
Official copy located in EDMS. Unstamped, printed copies are UNCONTROLLED documents and MAY NOT BE CURRENTWater Mouse Management Plan
Figure 3.1: Potential water mouse habitat on Curtis Island in the vicinity of the Project area
Document Number Revision Date: Revision Number:
ABUE-450-EN-V01-C-00013 28 January 2020 000
8 of 29
Official copy located in EDMS. Unstamped, printed copies are UNCONTROLLED documents and MAY NOT BE CURRENTWater Mouse Management Plan
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 2015).
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).
Document Number Revision Date: Revision Number:
ABUE-450-EN-V01-C-00013 28 January 2020 000
9 of 29
Official copy located in EDMS. Unstamped, printed copies are UNCONTROLLED documents and MAY NOT BE CURRENTWater Mouse Management Plan
3.2. Local Distribution and Habitat
3.2.1. Pre-clearance Survey
Following the approval of the Project on 21 February 2011, a pre-clearance 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 3.2 for
locations of trapping survey transects).
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
3.1).
• 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
2015). 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.
The results of this pre-clearance survey, along with pre-clearance surveys conducted by other proponents on
Curtis Island, are presented in Table 3.1 below.
Document Number Revision Date: Revision Number:
ABUE-450-EN-V01-C-00013 28 January 2020 000
10 of 29
Official copy located in EDMS. Unstamped, printed copies are UNCONTROLLED documents and MAY NOT BE CURRENTWater Mouse Management Plan
Table 3.1: Results of pre-clearance water mouse survey, including surveys by other LNG proponents
Dates Location Survey effort Survey results
A single water mouse was trapped on the final survey night (Photo 2).
Trapping survey over 3
The species identity was confirmed by the Queensland Museum on the
nights (360 trap nights)
basis of a hair sample collected from the individual.
No signs of activity (nest mounds with mud plastering, tree hollows
with mud plastering, nest burrows in the supra-littoral bank or prey
middens) found; several old, low mound structures had no evidence of
Daytime searches
mud plastering on top of the mound or along pathways leading into
1-
APLNG entrance tunnels that are an indication of recent water mouse activity.
4Mar’11
Facility Consequently, no evidence of active nesting was found.
(BAAM)
The confirmation of a single water mouse presence in remnant
mangrove communities (RE 12.1.3) with intact hydrology, prey
resources and natural features (hollow logs, hollow trunks and a supra-
Habitat assessment 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.
Trapping survey over 3 Three captures of Bush Rat (Rattus fuscipes) and four captures of
nights (445 trap nights) juvenile Melomys sp.
14–17
GLNG
Nov’10 Daytime searches No evidence of active nest sites or apparent feeding evidence found.
Facility
(BAAM) Mangrove shrubland (RE 12.1.3) in good condition up to 30m wide;
Habitat assessment
however potential nesting habitat is marginal.
Trapping survey over 2
No captures of water mouse.
nights (200 trap nights)
No evidence of characteristic water mouse nesting mounds or burrows
22–26
Daytime searches in the supra-littoral bank were found. No apparent feeding evidence
Sep’10 QCLNG
was found.
(QGC)
Narrow bands of Rhizophora stylosa low-forest (RE 12.1.3) adjacent to
Habitat assessment 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.
Trapping survey over 2
No captures of water mouse.
nights (150 trap nights)
No evidence of characteristic water mouse nesting mounds or burrows
22–26 Graham
Daytime searches in the supra-littoral bank were found. No apparent feeding evidence
Sep’10 Creek near
was found.
(QGC) pipeline
Rhizophora stylosa low-forest (RE 12.1.3) which was not identified as
Habitat assessment core habitat for water mouse. Narrow band of Ceriops tagal along the
edge of the claypan.
Trapping survey over 2
No captures of water mouse.
nights (200 trap nights)
Pipeline No evidence of characteristic water mouse nesting mounds or burrows
14–17
crossing & Daytime searches in the supra-littoral bank were found. No apparent feeding evidence
Oct’10
northern was found.
(QGC)
APLNG site Narrow bands of Ceriops tagal and Rhizophora stylosa low-forest (RE
Habitat assessment 12.1.3) adjacent to the shoreline which was not identified as core
habitat for water mouse.
Document Number Revision Date: Revision Number:
ABUE-450-EN-V01-C-00013 28 January 2020 000
11 of 29
Official copy located in EDMS. Unstamped, printed copies are UNCONTROLLED documents and MAY NOT BE CURRENTWater Mouse Management Plan
Figure 3.2: Location of 2011 water mouse survey sites
Document Number Revision Date: Revision Number:
ABUE-450-EN-V01-C-00013 28 January 2020 000
12 of 29
Official copy located in EDMS. Unstamped, printed copies are UNCONTROLLED documents and MAY NOT BE CURRENTWater Mouse Management Plan
Photo 1. Mangrove habitat in the Project area Photo 2. Water mouse captured in the Project area
suitable for water mouse. during the 2011 pre-clearing survey.
During the pre-clearance 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 are present at low density in the vicinity of the APLNG Facility; or
• the individual was dispersing through the area at the time of capture.
The extent of potential habitat on Curtis Island in the vicinity of APLNG Facility prior to construction is shown
in Figure 3.1. The extent of water mouse habitat on APLNG Facility Land prior to construction is shown in
Figure 3.2 in relation to the APLNG Facility footprint and the location of the trapped individual (2011).
Areas of retained water mouse habitat post-construction are shown in Figure 3.4. This area (shown in Figure
3.4) represents the Water Mouse Management Area (WMMA) – the intertidal area suitable for use by water
mouse as nesting and/or foraging habitat – that remains on APLNG Facility Land.
Document Number Revision Date: Revision Number:
ABUE-450-EN-V01-C-00013 28 January 2020 000
13 of 29
Official copy located in EDMS. Unstamped, printed copies are UNCONTROLLED documents and MAY NOT BE CURRENTWater Mouse Management Plan
Figure 3.3: Water mouse habitat in relation to the Project footprint pre-construction
Document Number Revision Date: Revision Number:
ABUE-450-EN-V01-C-00013 28 January 2020 000
14 of 29
Official copy located in EDMS. Unstamped, printed copies are UNCONTROLLED documents and MAY NOT BE CURRENTWater Mouse Management Plan
Figure 3.4: Water mouse management area on APLNG Facility Land – remaining water mouse habitat
Document Number Revision Date: Revision Number:
ABUE-450-EN-V01-C-00013 28 January 2020 000
15 of 29
Official copy located in EDMS. Unstamped, printed copies are UNCONTROLLED documents and MAY NOT BE CURRENTWater Mouse Management Plan
3.2.2. Post-clearing Surveys
The results of three water mouse monitoring surveys undertaken on APLNG Facility Land and one survey within
the Curtis Island Environmental Management Precinct (CIEMP), are summarised in Table 3.2 below.
Table 3.2: Results of post-clearing water mouse surveys
Dates Location Survey effort Survey results
Trapping survey over 4
One capture of House Mouse (Mus musculus).
nights (400 trap nights)
19–23
APLNG
Jan’14 Daytime searches (10 hours) No evidence of active nest sites or apparent feeding evidence found.
Facility
(BAAM
Land Locally extensive mangrove shrubland in good condition; however, few
2014) Habitat assessment hollows suitable for Water Mouse were identified. Potential Water
Mouse food resources were reasonably abundant.
Trapping survey over 4
17 captures of Grassland Melomys (Melomys burtoni), several of which
nights (400 trap nights on 4
retuned to mangrove tree-trunk hollows after their release.
transects covering 3.6 km)
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
22–27 burrows, with one exception that may have been occupied by a large
Daytime searches (20 hours) rodent. Numerous hollows were identified in larger Rhizophora stylosa
Jun’15
CIEMP trees that could potentially provide suitable nesting habitat for Water
(BAAM Mouse; however, none was associated with mud plastering, a
2015a) characteristic of Water Mouse nests in tree-trunk hollows. No apparent
feeding evidence was found.
Extensive remnant and relatively undisturbed mangrove shrubland to
low closed forest on marine clay plains and estuaries (Regional
Habitat assessment 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.
Trapping survey over 4 23 captures of Grassland Melomys (Melomys burtoni), several of which
nights (400 trap nights) returned to mangrove tree-trunk hollows after their release.
No evidence of Water Mouse occupancy in the form of mud plastering
14–18 Daytime searches (10 hours) on logs or hollow mangrove trunks, or feeding evidence (clusters of
APLNG
Nov’15 shellfish debris) was found.
Facility
(BAAM
Land Locally extensive mangrove shrubland in good condition; hollowed
2015b) trunks within mangroves and hollow logs along the supra-littoral bank
Habitat assessment provide suitable nesting options for Water Mouse. Potential water
mouse food resources (crabs, shellfish and mudskippers) were
abundant.
No water mouse captured.
Trapping survey (400 trap
nights) Six Grassland Melomys (Melomys burtoni) recorded across the trapping
28 Mar– period observed entering mangrove habitat upon release
2Apr’19 APLNG
Facility No evidence of Water Mouse presence (nest mounds or prey middens)
(CDM Daytime searches (10 hours)
were observed.
Smith, Land
2019) Habitat values on the site are considered suitable for the species. No
Habitat assessment observable habitat value decline in the mangrove area over the Water
Mouse survey period (2014-present)
Document Number Revision Date: Revision Number:
ABUE-450-EN-V01-C-00013 28 January 2020 000
16 of 29
Official copy located in EDMS. Unstamped, printed copies are UNCONTROLLED documents and MAY NOT BE CURRENTWater Mouse Management Plan
The combined survey effort of water mouse trapping surveys in suitable water mouse habitat on Curtis Island
now stands at a total of 2,955 trap-nights. Only a single water mouse has been recorded on APLNG Facility
Land in 2011 across all of the surveys conducted to date, giving a trap success rate of 0.034%. 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).
The 2019 survey did not observe any signs of water mouse presence (nest mounds or prey middens) but
confirmed that habitat values remain suitable for the species with abundant prey and tree hollows present,
and no observable decline in habitat value between 2014 and 2019 (CDM Smith 2019). Given the survey record
on the site to date, and noting that trapping coverage has included a large proportion of the available habitat
on the site, it is reasonable to expect Water Mouse to have been detected in the APLNG survey area (since the
initial record) if it was present (CDM Smith 2019).The Water Mouse Monitoring Program requires further
monitoring events every five years following the current survey. The monitoring consultant has recommended
that, given the lack of records of the species since 2011 and the consultants opinion that future monitoring
events are unlikely to provide any meaningful information on the species, the Water Mouse Monitoring
Program be curtailed in negotiation with DotEE (CDM Smith 2019).
Document Number Revision Date: Revision Number:
ABUE-450-EN-V01-C-00013 28 January 2020 000
17 of 29
Official copy located in EDMS. Unstamped, printed copies are UNCONTROLLED documents and MAY NOT BE CURRENTWater Mouse Management Plan
4. Management Strategy
4.1. Operational Activities and Potential Impacts
The National Recovery Plan and Referral Guidelines (DERM 2010, Commonwealth of Australia 2015) list threats
and threatening processes for the water mouse including:
• Physical habitat loss through clearing, degradation and fragmentation
• altered hydrology including increased freshwater inflows and sedimentation from storm water run-off
• physical changes to salt marsh such as runnelling and bund wall construction that modify tidal amplitude
and frequency of inundation
• reclamation of intertidal land and terrestrial habitats
• modified water levels and salinity in tidal waterways that may indirectly impact the water mouse
through negative impacts on prey and habitat;
• habitat modification through changes in soil chemistry from disturbance of acid-sulfate soils leading to
habitat degradation that impacts negatively on prey
• predation pressures from feral dogs, modification of suitable habitat by feral, hard-hoofed animals such
as pigs and horses and potential competition for food resources from native and introduced fauna
• application of herbicides and pesticides which may persist in natural environments possibly impacting
non-target populations, their prey and habitat
• other threats including contamination from oil pollution, weed invasion, vehicle use in intertidal areas,
prolonged or intensive wave action from vessels and fire.
Threats and threatening processes relevant to ongoing operations at the APLNG Facility, with the potential to
affect the water mouse management area, include:
• degradation of habitat from altered natural hydrology, shoreline erosion from vessel wash and the
introduction or proliferation of weeds
• ongoing effects of habitat fragmentation associated with infrastructure in the intertidal zone
• disturbance from noise, vibration and light spill
• application of herbicides and pesticides
• potential contamination from oil spills or inappropriate waste management
• altered predation risk and potential competition for food resources, and
• reduced modification of habitat through exclusion of hard-hoofed animals from the water mouse
management area.
Potentially threatening processes during operations are detailed in Table 4.1.
Document Number Revision Date: Revision Number:
ABUE-450-EN-V01-C-00013 28 January 2020 000
18 of 29
Official copy located in EDMS. Unstamped, printed copies are UNCONTROLLED documents and MAY NOT BE CURRENTWater Mouse Management Plan
Table 4.1: Potential threats and threatening processes associated with operation of the APLNG Facility
Site Activities Potential impacts
Marine facilities across Barriers to water mouse dispersal through habitat fragmentation and the presence of wall
the intertidal zone structures.
Fresh water discharge to Concentrated inflows of fresh water (from inlet air chilling condensate discharge and point
mangroves source stormwater discharge), leading to altered mangrove ecology, mangrove die-back
and a reduction of invertebrate food availability for water mouse in intertidal mudflats.
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 availability for water mouse in intertidal mudflats.
Operational noise and Behavioural changes including disorientation and/or disturbance within the intertidal
vibration habitat
Light spill Light spill to intertidal habitats affecting water mouse use of the area
Shipping and support Pollution through spills and discarded waste leading to altered mangrove ecology.
vessel activities Shoreline erosion from vessel wash affecting water mouse nesting sites.
Use of herbicides and Altered mangrove habitat ecology, leading to reduction of invertebrate food availability in
mosquitocides intertidal foraging habitats.
Waste management Inappropriate disposal of waste contaminating water quality and/or encouraging potential
predators or species that may compete for resources.
Boundary fencing that Ongoing protection of water mouse habitat from degradation by hard-hoofed animals (i.e.
excludes feral horses a positive impact).
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.
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 (ABUE-450-
EN-V01-C-00009), are expected to reduce the potential for predation risk from feral predators. 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.
Document Number Revision Date: Revision Number:
ABUE-450-EN-V01-C-00013 28 January 2020 000
19 of 29
Official copy located in EDMS. Unstamped, printed copies are UNCONTROLLED documents and MAY NOT BE CURRENTWater Mouse Management Plan
4.1.1. Potential Cumulative Impacts
The impacts of the APLNG Facility were considered in relation to the cumulative impacts of a number of other
industrial and port facilities that may disturb the wider water mouse population. The principal cumulative
impacts occurred during construction including the direct impact of habitat loss and the 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 APLNG Facility to this cumulative
impact was expected to be proportional to the direct and indirect impact of the facility footprint area in
relation to the footprint areas of the other LNG facilities on Curtis Island.
4.2. Objectives and Targets
The overarching objectives and targets for water mouse management at the APLNG Facility are identified in
Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Water mouse management objectives and targets
Objectives Targets
No death of water mouse as a result of operational
Minimise disturbance to water mouse or their habitat activities
from operational activities No loss of water mouse habitat within the water mouse
management area as a result of operational activities
4.3. Environmental Control Measures
The mitigation and management of potential impacts of the operation of the APLNG Facility on water mouse
follows the 'avoid, minimise, mitigate, offset' hierarchy.
4.3.1. Avoidance and Minimisation of Impacts
Due to the size and scale of the APLNG Facility it was not possible to avoid all direct and indirect impacts on
water mouse habitat. The facility 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, a total area of 1.9ha of water mouse habitat was cleared during construction.
Two areas of water mouse habitat between the roll-on, roll-off (RORO) and material offloading facility (MOF),
totalling 1.2ha, were expected to experience a localised severe indirect impact (Figure 3.4). This is due to the
fragmentation of this habitat by solid-wall structures that inhibit movement between areas that are too small
to sustain a water mouse population (average home ranges require 0.77-3.42ha of suitable habitat, see Section
2). Approximately 13.8ha of water mouse habitat between the MOF and LNG jetty was expected to experience
a localised moderate indirect impact from habitat fragmentation because, while the area is larger, water
mouse dispersal to the south will be hindered by the presence of solid-wall jetty structures of the neighbouring
LNG facility. Additional cumulative impacts affecting a further 3ha arose from The Narrows pipeline crossings
to the north, and the LNG facilities to the south through habitat fragmentation (1.6ha to the north of the RORO
external to APLNG Facility Land and 1.4ha to the south of the jetty on APLNG Facility Land).
Document Number Revision Date: Revision Number:
ABUE-450-EN-V01-C-00013 28 January 2020 000
20 of 29
Official copy located in EDMS. Unstamped, printed copies are UNCONTROLLED documents and MAY NOT BE CURRENTWater Mouse Management Plan
4.3.2. Mitigation of Impacts – Design and Construction
Three docking facilities, the MOF, ferry causeway and RORO facility to the north of the main mangrove area
(Figure 3.4) present significant barriers to water mouse dispersal along the upper inter-tidal zone. 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 foundation for the underpass and the strong likelihood that they would either collapse or
become blocked.
The access trestle for the LNG jetty to the south of the main mangrove area is supported on pilings which allow
for water mouse dispersal under the jetty platform. However, dispersal of water mouse to the south of the
APLNG Facility is hindered by the presence of marine infrastructure for other LNG facilities that similarly bisects
intertidal habitat and impedes dispersal. As measures to mitigate the indirect impact of habitat fragmentation
and impeded dispersal on water mouse were not feasible, appropriate water mouse habitat offsets have been
identified and secured (see Section 4.5).
Document Number Revision Date: Revision Number:
ABUE-450-EN-V01-C-00013 28 January 2020 000
21 of 29
Official copy located in EDMS. Unstamped, printed copies are UNCONTROLLED documents and MAY NOT BE CURRENTWater Mouse Management Plan
4.3.3. Mitigation of Impacts – Operations
The environmental control measures undertaken to mitigate potential direct and indirect impacts on water
mouse during the operational phase of the Project are detailed in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Mitigation and management of impacts on water mouse during operations
Activity and potential Mitigation and management control Adaptive
Reporting
impacts measures management
Fresh water discharge to Manage potential water quality changes in Unauthorised Review stormwater
mangroves – leads to accordance with the Operational stormwater management processes
degradation of water Environmental Management Plan releases will be in the event of non-
mouse habitat Manage stormwater runoff in accordance with reported to the conforming stormwater
the Operational Environmental Management Queensland discharge event and/or
Plan and the EA. Government an unauthorised effect
Administering on mangrove ecology is
Monitor stormwater water-quality as required
Authority as determined
by the EA.
required by the EA.
Monitor mangrove habitat condition in the
Project area in accordance with the approved
Receiving Environment Monitoring Program.
Operational noise and Manage noise and vibration in accordance In accordance with In accordance with the
vibration results in with the Operational Environmental the Operational Operational
behaviour changes Management Plan. Environmental Environmental
Management Plan Management Plan
Light spill on habitat Manage lighting in accordance with the In accordance with In accordance with the
disturbs water mouse Operational Environmental Management Plan. the Operational Operational
Environmental Environmental
Management Plan Management Plan
Shipping and support vessel Manage shipping activity impacts on water In accordance with In accordance with the
activity – causes pollution mouse in accordance with the Operational the Operational Operational Shipping
and shoreline erosion Shipping Activity Management Plan. Shipping Activity Activity Management
altering mangrove ecology Management Plan Plan
Use of herbicides and Minimise use of herbicides and mosquitocides Record quantities Post event review of
mosquitocides – alters in intertidal habitats. and type of any chemical types and
mangrove habitat ecology, Monitor mangrove habitat condition in the herbicides volumes used, to
leading to reduction in Project area in accordance with the Receiving /mosquitocides enable improved
invertebrate food Environment Monitoring Program used on site, to practices to be
availability in intertidal enable deployed.
foraging habitat reporting/incident
investigation as
required.
Waste management – Manage solid waste and feral animals in Harm caused by Reinforce APLNG
inappropriate disposal accordance with the Operational domestic and feral Facility “no domestic
contaminating water Environmental Management Plan and the animals found pets” requirements
quality and/or encouraging Biosecurity Management Plan. onsite to be through the
potential predators or reported to APLNG implementation of
competitive species Facility operational Code of Conduct
management. Training and general
awareness training.
Boundary fencing that Monitor boundary fencing to detect and repair Damaged fencing to Repair significant
excludes feral horses – any damage. be reported to damage to boundary
reduces degradation of APLNG Facility fencing.
habitat by hard-hoofed operational
animals (positive impact) management.
Document Number Revision Date: Revision Number:
ABUE-450-EN-V01-C-00013 28 January 2020 000
22 of 29
Official copy located in EDMS. Unstamped, printed copies are UNCONTROLLED documents and MAY NOT BE CURRENTWater Mouse Management Plan
4.4. Residual Impacts and Offsets
As detailed in Section 4.4.1, a total area of 1.9ha of water mouse habitat was cleared for the development of
the APLNG Facility, representing the direct impact on water mouse habitat. As measures to mitigate the
indirect impact of habitat fragmentation and impeded dispersal were not feasible, a severe localised indirect
impact was expected on 1.2ha between the RORO and MOF and a moderate localised indirect impact was
expected on 16.8ha of water mouse habitat. The total area of water mouse habitat experiencing unavoidable
direct and indirect impacts as a result of the APLNG Facility, including contribution to localised cumulative
impacts, is therefore 19.9ha.
No water mouse or evidence of water mouse presence was encountered during clearing works or construction
of the APLNG Facility, and no water mouse deaths have been reported during construction or operations to
date (APLNG 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015a, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019).
Monitoring of the health of mangrove habitats has not detected any discernible impact of the APLNG Facility
on mature trees, leaf litter, seedlings or crab burrow densities in retained water mouse habitat (ERM 2019).
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 CIEMP, were secured by
the LNG proponents as environmental offsets and total more than 25,000ha. Monte Christo was gazetted as
part of the Curtis Island Conservation Park on 15 November 2019. The total area of potential water mouse
habitat within the offset area is 9,718ha, of which 2,951ha is allocated to the APLNG Facility as shown in Table
4.4.
Table 4.4: Offset areas on Curtis Island and allocation to offset impacts of the APLNG Facility
Offset component Water mouse habitat type Area (ha) Offset allocation
Monte Christo 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
Reproduced from Water Mouse (Xeromys myoides) Habitat Report: Monte Christo Offset (APLN-000-EN-R01-D-34551).
* 90% of the one third allocated to APLNG
** 100% of the one third allocated to APLNG
As stipulated in the Monte Christo Offset Proposal, 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 has been secured to offset the unavoidable impacts of the APLNG Facility on water mouse.
An additional offset action proposed by APLNG was to conduct a survey for water mouse within potential
water mouse habitat in the CIEMP. The results of this survey are provided in Section 3.2.2.
Document Number Revision Date: Revision Number:
ABUE-450-EN-V01-C-00013 28 January 2020 000
23 of 29
Official copy located in EDMS. Unstamped, printed copies are UNCONTROLLED documents and MAY NOT BE CURRENTWater Mouse Management Plan
4.5. Corrective Actions
Should monitoring of water mouse habitat detect adverse impacts associated with operations at the APLNG
Facility, the likely cause(s) will 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 suitably qualified specialists and implemented within the timeframes established
as a part of the corrective action process.
Corrective actions specific to water mouse management are identified in Table 4.5 below.
Table 4.5: Corrective actions
Activity Corrective action
Review stormwater management processes in the event of non-conforming
Fresh water discharge to
stormwater discharge event and/or an effect on mangrove ecology is
mangroves (stormwater)
determined.
Use of herbicides and Herbicide and mosquitocide use will be monitored and managed in accordance
mosquitocides with the Biosecurity Management Plan.
Damaged boundary fencing and
potential access of feral horses to Repair significant damage to boundary fencing.
water mouse management area
Document Number Revision Date: Revision Number:
ABUE-450-EN-V01-C-00013 28 January 2020 000
24 of 29
Official copy located in EDMS. Unstamped, printed copies are UNCONTROLLED documents and MAY NOT BE CURRENTWater Mouse Management Plan
5. Monitoring, Auditing and Review
Monitoring will be conducted in accordance with the Water Mouse Monitoring Program detailed in Appendix
1.
The implementation of this Plan will be verified periodically in accordance with ConocoPhillips’ auditing
requirements, but not less frequently than once every 3 years.
Third party audits will be carried out as per the condition requirements of the EA (Condition A9 to A14) and
the EPBC Act Approval 2009/4977 (Conditions 76 to 81) for the operation of the APLNG Facility.
The Water Mouse Management Plan will be reviewed triennially, or in response to incidents or requests from
regulatory agencies, and revised to reflect changes and new activities or developments as per Conditions 68
to 71 of EPBC Act Approval 2009/4977.
During the review of the Plan the following items will be considered:
• incidents and response actions
• results of monitoring and auditing conducted
• assessment of the objectives and targets
• assessment of opportunities for improvement
• suggested amendments required.
Amendments to the Plan must not contravene or create inconsistency with any condition of the EA or EPBC
Act Approval 2009/4977.
Document Number Revision Date: Revision Number:
ABUE-450-EN-V01-C-00013 28 January 2020 000
25 of 29
Official copy located in EDMS. Unstamped, printed copies are UNCONTROLLED documents and MAY NOT BE CURRENTYou can also read
