NSW Roads and Maritime Services...Threatened invertebrates Threatened invertebrate species covered by this plan; Southern Pink Underwing Moth ( Phyllodes imperialis smithersi ), and

NSW Roads and Maritime Services

WOOLGOOLGA TO BALLINA | PACIFIC HIGHWAY UPGRADE

THREATENED INVERTEBRATES MANAGEMENT PLAN

Version 3

July 2015

Prepared by: NSW Roads and Maritime Services, Aurecon, Sinclair Knight Merz and Amec Foster Wheeler


THREATENED INVERTEBRATES MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 1

Contents Glossary and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... 3

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Project overview .................................................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Purpose of the plan ............................................................................................................................. 7 1.3 Management structure and plan updates .......................................................................................... 9 1.4 Plan authors and expert review ........................................................................................................ 14 1.5 Consultation ...................................................................................................................................... 15

2. Threatened invertebrate populations .......................................................................................... 17

2.1 Project overview ................................................................................................................................ 17 2.2 Existing knowledge ........................................................................................................................... 18 2.3 Threats .............................................................................................................................................. 18

3. Targeted surveys ............................................................................................................................ 19

3.1 BAAM (2012 and 2013) – targeted surveys..................................................................................... 19 3.2 BAAM (2014) – pre-construction baseline survey and nocturnal monitoring for conservation

significant invertebrates .................................................................................................................... 20

4. Potential impacts and management approach ........................................................................... 27

4.1 Potential impacts associated with the project .................................................................................. 27 4.2 Detailed design considerations ........................................................................................................ 28 4.3 Mitigation and monitoring approach ................................................................................................. 28 4.4 Effectiveness of mitigation measures ............................................................................................... 29 4.5 Adaptive management approach ..................................................................................................... 29

5. Pre-construction management measures ................................................................................... 33

5.1 Potential impacts during pre-construction phase ............................................................................. 33 5.2 Management objectives .................................................................................................................... 33 5.3 Management measures .................................................................................................................... 33

6. Construction management measures ......................................................................................... 40

6.1 Potential impacts during construction .............................................................................................. 40 6.2 Mitigation goals ................................................................................................................................. 40 6.3 Management measures .................................................................................................................... 41 6.4 Mitigation goals and corrective actions ............................................................................................ 45

7. Operational management measures ............................................................................................ 51

7.1 Potential impacts during operational phase ..................................................................................... 51 7.2 Mitigation goals ................................................................................................................................. 51 7.3 Management measures .................................................................................................................... 51 7.4 Mitigation goals and corrective actions ............................................................................................ 53


Page 2 NSW ROADS AND MARITIME SERVICES

8. Monitoring program........................................................................................................................ 56

8.1 Objectives.......................................................................................................................................... 56 8.2 Southern Pink Underwing Moth ....................................................................................................... 56 8.3 Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle ........................................................................................................ 58 8.4 Revegetation ..................................................................................................................................... 58 8.5 Performance indicators and corrective actions ................................................................................ 60 8.6 Evaluation, project review and reporting .......................................................................................... 61

9. Summary table and implementation schedule ........................................................................... 63

10. References ....................................................................................................................................... 66

Appendix A – Response to expert and agency comments ................................................................... 67

Appendix B – Dr D Sands Review ............................................................................................................ 79

Appendix C – Threatened invertebrate species profiles ..................................................................... 107

Appendix D – Targeted survey and habitat assessment for Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly (BAAM, 2014) ............................................................................................................................................... 115

Appendix E – Pre-construction survey and nocturnal monitoring for conservation significant invertebrates (BAAM, 2014) ......................................................................................................... 116



Glossary and Abbreviations Term Definition CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan CoA Conditions of Approval Construction footprint The direct area of the design alignment (also referred to as the clearance limits) Direct impact An impact that causes direct harm within the project boundary (i.e. clearing of vegetation) DoE Commonwealth Department of the Environment (formally known as the Department of

Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) DP&E NSW Department of Planning and Environment (formally known as Department of Planning

and Infrastructure) DPI NSW Department of Primary Industries DSEWPaC The former Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population

and Community. Now DoE. EP&A Act Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 EPA NSW Environment Protection Authority EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 EIS Environmental Impact Statement (Biodiversity Assessment Working Paper) FFMP Flora and Fauna Management Plan Indirect impact An impact that causes harm outside of the project boundary as a result of a direct impact

(i.e. edge effects, erosion etc.) MCoA Ministers Condition of Approval NSW New South Wales OEH NSW Office of Environment and Heritage Offset An offset may be an area of land that is protected and managed to improve biodiversity values

or an action that compensates for adverse impacts to biodiversity. Requirements for offsets are determined using an objective assessment of predicted loss of biodiversity at the development site and expected gain in biodiversity to be achieved at the offset site.

The Project Refers to all the proposed works in all eleven sections which includes the construction footprint with a 10 metre construction buffer, ancillary and compound sites and design changes.

Trigger for corrective action This is a prescribed outcome that should it be reached, an assessment as to why the objectives are not being met will be undertaken and then appropriate corrective actions implemented.

Revegetation The planting of native species post construction to stabilise areas and restore bushland in areas that were required to be cleared as a result of construction, but not required for ongoing highway operations.

Roads and Maritime NSW Roads and Maritime Services SAP Sensitive Area Plans SPIR Submissions / Preferred Infrastructure Report Stochastic event Natural phenomenon such as storms, fires, floods, droughts etc. (random event) Targeted surveys Field surveys completed post SPIR that included targeted surveys for threatened

invertebrate species under the EPBC Act and TSC Act. TIMP Threatened Invertebrates Management Plan Threatened invertebrates Threatened invertebrate species covered by this plan; Southern Pink Underwing Moth

(Phyllodes imperialis smithersi), and Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle (Nurus atlas) Threatened species Any organism listed as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered under state and/or

Commonwealth legislation. TRCRPMP Threatened Rainforest Communities and Rainforest Plants Management Plan TSC Act Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 UDLP Urban Design and Landscape Plan W2B Woolgoolga to Ballina Pacific Highway Upgrade



1. Introduction 1.1 Project overview NSW Roads and Maritime Services (Roads and Maritime) has received approval for the Woolgoolga to Ballina (W2B) Pacific Highway upgrade project (the project / the action), on the NSW North Coast. Approvals were granted under Part 5.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) on 24 June 2014 and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) on 14 August 2014. The location of the project is shown in Figure 1-1.

Since 1996, both the Australian and NSW governments have contributed funds to the upgrade of the 664 kilometre section of the Pacific Highway between Hexham and the NSW/Queensland border, as part of the Pacific Highway Upgrade Program.

The Project will upgrade around 155 kilometres of highway and on completion will result in a four-lane divided road between Hexham and the NSW / Queensland border. For the purposes of the EIS the project has been divided into 11 sections as illustrated in Figure 1-1.

Key features of the project include: ● Duplication of 155 kilometres of the Pacific Highway to a motorway standard (Class M) or arterial

road (Class A), with two lanes in each direction and room to add a third lane if required in the future ● Split-level (grade-separated) interchanges at Range Road, Glenugie, Tyndale, Maclean, Yamba /

Harwood, Woombah (Iluka Road), Woodburn, Broadwater and Wardell ● Bypasses of South Grafton, Ulmarra, Woodburn, Broadwater and Wardell ● About 40 bridges over rivers, creeks and floodplains, including major bridges crossing the Clarence

and Richmond rivers ● Bridges over and under the highway to maintain access to local roads that cross the highway ● Access roads to maintain connections to existing local roads and properties ● Structures designed to encourage animals over and under the upgraded highway where it crosses

key animal habitat or wildlife corridors ● Rest areas located at about 50 kilometre intervals at Pine Brush (Tyndale), north of Mororo Road

and north of the Richmond River; and ● A heavy vehicle checking station near Halfway Creek and north of the Richmond River.

Construction and delivery of the project will be undertaken in a number of separate stages. These stages are detailed in the Staging Report prepared to satisfy NSW Government Approval – Minister’s Condition of Approval (MCoA) A7. The Staging Report submitted in March 2015 deals in detail with Stage 1 of the Project.

The Project is separated into 11 Sections as listed below:

• Section 1 – Woolgoolga to Halfway Creek • Section 2 – Halfway Creek to Glenugie • Section 3 – Glenugie interchange to the Tyndale interchange • Section 4 – Tyndale interchange to the existing highway at the Maclean interchange • Section 5 – Maclean interchange to the Iluka Road interchange at Woombah • Section 6 – Iluka Road at Woombah to Devil’s Pulpit • Section 7 – Devils Pulpit to Trustums Hill • Section 8 – Trustums Hill to Broadwater National Park • Section 9 – Broadwater National Park to the Richmond River • Section 10 – Richmond River to the interchange at Coolgardie Road • Section 11 – Coolgardie Road to the tie-in with the Pimlico to Teven project.



The project is jointly funded by the NSW and Australian governments. Both governments have a shared commitment to finish upgrading the highway to a four-lane divided road as soon as possible. Construction timing for Stage 1 is estimated for commencement in May 2015 and completion of the entire project is planned for the end of 2020. The project does not include the Pacific Highway upgrades at Glenugie and Devils Pulpit (as illustrated in Figure 1-1). These are separate projects, with both of these additional projects now complete. Altogether, these three projects will total to an upgrade of 164 kilometres of the Pacific Highway. The project does include a partial upgrade of the existing dual carriageways at Halfway Creek.

For a more detailed project description (as approved in June 2014) refer to the Roads and Maritime Services Woolgoolga to Ballina Pacific Highway Upgrade Submissions/Preferred Infrastructure Report (SPIR) dated November 2013 and the Woolgoolga to Ballina Staging Report (2015).



Figure 1-1 Project location and sections



1.2 Purpose of the plan This Threatened Invertebrates Management Plan (TIMP) has been developed to meet the requirements of the NSW Government Approval – Ministers Condition of Approval B4 and D8, and Commonwealth EPBC Act Approval CoA 14. The requirements of these approvals and where it is addressed in this report are detailed in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1 Project Approval requirements and where addressed Approval requirement Where addressed NSW approval MCoA B4 Light spill from the project (referred to as SSI) shall be avoided on Pink

Underwing Moth and Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle habitat, where feasible and reasonable.

How impacts from light spill will be avoided and minimised are addressed in Sections 6.3.5 and 7.3.1.

MCoA D8 The Applicant shall prepare and implement Threatened Species Management Plans to detail how impacts of the project will be minimised and managed specifically for each species identified as significantly impacted in the documents listed in condition A2 or in accordance with condition D1. The Plans shall be developed from the draft Threatened Species Management Plans included in the documents listed in condition A2(c) (subject to condition D9), in consultation with OEH, DPI (Fisheries) and DoE, and to the satisfaction of the Secretary, and shall include but not necessarily be limited to: (a) demonstration that adequate surveys have been undertaken to assess the impacts of the SSI with reference to the Mitigation Framework developed under condition D1, including baseline data collected from surveys, undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist on threatened species and ecological communities within all habitat areas to be cleared of vegetation for the SSI, that are likely to contain these species and that are likely to be adversely impacted by the SSI (as determined by a suitably qualified expert). The data shall address the densities, distribution, habitat use and movement patterns of these species; (b) identification of potential impacts on each species; (c) details of and demonstrated effectiveness of the proposed avoidance and mitigation and management measures to be implemented for each threatened species including measures to at least maintain habitat values of habitat areas compared to baseline data and maintain connectivity for the relevant species; (d) an adaptive monitoring program to assess the use of the mitigation measures identified in conditions B10 and D2. The monitoring program shall nominate appropriate and justified monitoring periods, performance parameters and criteria against which effectiveness of the mitigation measures will be measured and include operational road kill and fauna crossing surveys to assess the use of fauna crossings and exclusion fencing implemented as part of the SSI; (e) monitoring methodology for threatened flora and fauna adjacent to the SSI footprint, (f) goals and performance indicators to measure the success of mitigation measures, which shall be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timely (SMART), and be compared against baseline data; (g) methodology for the ongoing monitoring of road kill, the species densities, distribution, habitat use and movement patterns, and the use of fauna crossings during construction and operation of the SSI, including the proposed timing, and duration of that monitoring; (h) provision for the assessment of monitoring data to identify changes to habitat usage and whether this can be attributed to the SSI; (i) details of contingency measures that would be implemented in the event of changes to habitat usage patterns, entities, distribution, and movement patterns attributable to the construction or operation of the SSI, based on adequate baseline data; (j) mechanisms for the monitoring, review and amendment of these plans; (k) provision for ongoing monitoring during operation of the SSI (for operation/ongoing impacts) until such time as the use and effectiveness of mitigation measures can be demonstrated to have been achieved over a minimum of three successive monitoring periods, unless otherwise agreed by the Secretary in consultation with the OEH, DPI (Fisheries) and DoE; and

The requirements of this condition in the context of threatened invertebrate species are addressed in this plan in the following sections: (a) Section 1, 2, 3 & 5. (b) Section 4, 5, 6 and 7. (c) Section 4 and 8. (d) Section 8. (e) Section 8. (f) Section 5.3.7, 6.4 and

7.4. (g) N/A (h) Section 8. (i) Section 8.5 (j) Section 1.3 & 8.6. (k) Section 8. (l) Section 8.6. Expert and agency recommendations regarding the TIMP are summarised and details as to how they have been addressed in this plan are provided in Appendix A.



Approval requirement Where addressed (l) provision for annual reporting of monitoring results to the Secretary and the OEH, DPI (Fisheries) and DoE, or as otherwise agreed by those agencies.

Commonwealth approval EPBC 14 In order to minimise impacts to threatened species and communities, and

migratory species, the approval holder must develop and implement\ all Frameworks, Strategies, Plans or Programs, in accordance with the requirements of the following NSW approval conditions:

a) The Mitigation Framework required by NSW approval condition D1; b) The Connectivity Strategy required by NSW approval condition D2 and

the requirements of NSW approval condition B12; c) The Threatened Species Management Plans required by NSW approval

condition D8 ; d) The Construction Soil and Water Quality Management Plan required by

NSW approval condition D26(c); e) The Construction Flora and Fauna Management Plan required by NSW

approval condition D26(e); f) The Borrow Site Management Plan required by NSW approval condition

D22; g) The Water Quality Monitoring Program required by NSW approval

condition D12; and h) The Ancillary Facilities Management Plan required by NSW approval

conim dition D21.

a) Mitigation Framework has been prepared and approved. The Framework outlines targeted surveys and methodologies that have been completed and any changes made to this TIMP as a result.

b) Connectivity Strategy for Stage 1 (Sections 1, 2 and early works) has been prepared. Connectivity Strategy for Sections 3-11 is to be prepared and submitted for approval.

c) The requirements of this condition pertaining to threatened invertebrates are addressed in this plan.

d) N/A e) N/A f) N/A g) N/A h) N/A

SPIR Environmental Management Measure B11 The threatened species management plans prepared for the project will be finalised,

as relevant to the element of the project to be constructed. Development of the plans will include responding, where feasible and reasonable to:

• Recommendations from expert review undertaken as part of the Submissions / Preferred Infrastructure Report (and detailed in section 1.4 of the management plans).

• Any conditions of approval. • Results from baseline monitoring undertaken.

The threatened species management plans will be finalised in consultation with the relevant State and Federal government agencies

This report forms the final Threatened Invertebrate Management Plan. Expert recommendations, conditions of approval and baseline surveys have been considered and addressed in this plan. This TIMP has been submitted to assessment agencies for review. Comments are now addressed and the plan submitted for final approval.

B23 The pre-clearing process will be consistent with Roads and Maritime Biodiversity Guidelines: Protecting and Managing Biodiversity on RTA projects (RTA, 2011a) and include: • Pre-clearing surveys by an experienced ecologist for large bird nests,

particularly for listed species such as the Black-necked Stork, Eastern Osprey, Square-tailed Kite and Little Eagle during the nesting and breeding season (July to December) and tree roosting (eg Southern Myotis) or cave dwelling bats in trees or existing culvert/bridge structures. If the species is present in or directly adjacent to the project footprint (including ancillary facilities), measures to manage any species including buffer and exclusion zones, translocation of nests or establishment of adjacent nesting platforms would be considered, if required.

• Mapping the location of any threatened flora and/or fauna species, Threatened Ecological Communities and habitat.

Details of the surveys conducted for threatened invertebrate species are summarised in Section 3. Mapping of invertebrate records and habitat are provided in this plan. Additional pre-clearing surveys to be completed prior to clearing are described in Section 6.3.4.

B24 The location of exclusion zones will be identified, with temporary fencing or flagging tape to indicate the limits of clearing (in accordance with the Roads and Maritime Biodiversity Guidelines (RTA, 2011a). Permanent fauna exclusion fencing for the project (as described in the Connectivity Strategy), where reasonable and feasible, will be installed prior to clearing and can function as exclusion fencing.

The requirements of this condition in the context of threatened invertebrate species are addressed in Section 5.3.3 and 6.3.3.

B32 To prevent injury and mortality of fauna during the clearing of vegetation and The requirements of this



Approval requirement Where addressed drainage of farm dams, an experienced and licensed wildlife carer and/or ecologist will be present to capture and relocate fauna where required. Further details regarding fauna handling and vegetation clearing procedures are provided in the Roads and Maritime Biodiversity Guidelines (RTA, 2011a).

condition in the context of threatened invertebrate species are addressed in Section 6.3.4.

B51 Ancillary facilities will be located in cleared or sparsely treed portions of the ancillary facility sites and avoid unnecessary clearing of native vegetation.

The requirements of this condition are addressed in Section 5.3.2.

The TIMP identifies the potential impacts of the upgrade on threatened invertebrate species listed under the EPBC Act and NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) which have been confirmed to occur in the project area and have the potential to be directly impacted or at greatest risk of impact from the project. This version of the plan relates to those sections of the project where the threatened invertebrates are known or likely to occur.

This plan identifies proposed mitigation measures that will be applied to populations of threatened invertebrates and a program for monitoring the effectiveness of these measures to ensure the long-term survival of the species in the area of the project. The plan focuses on two species identified as at greatest risk from the project (referred to in this plan as ‘threatened invertebrates’), being:

● Southern Pink Underwing Moth (Phyllodes imperialis smithersi); and ● Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle (Nurus atlas).

It should be noted Roads and Maritime commissioned additional targeted surveys and habitat assessments in November 2014 for the Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly (Petalura litorea) an endangered species under the New South Wales TSC Act. Despite dedicated active searches around all suitable wetland habitats that were accessed during the survey, no adult Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly individuals were observed. As no observations of Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly were made during the survey and no suitable breeding habitat was identified in association with past records in close proximity to the proposed highway corridor, no known breeding habitat was mapped for this species. However ecologists undertaking the survey did note some potential breeding habitats associated with wetlands in the project corridor. Further details of the survey and findings are provided in the technical report prepared by Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd in Appendix D. As no individuals were confirmed the species has not been included within this TIMP. As the species habitat is associated with wetlands Roads and Maritime will be undertaking a number of avoidance and mitigation measures to reduce impacts to these areas which in-turn support conservation of the Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly and its habitat should it occur.

This plan is intended to provide:

● An overarching management framework for threatened invertebrates for the Project ● A summary of the locations where threatened invertebrate populations and their host plants were

detected during pre-construction targeted surveys along with proposed monitoring sites identified for construction and post construction monitoring

● Management and mitigation measures to be implemented during pre-construction, construction and operation of the project to minimise impacts on threatened invertebrate populations; and

● A monitoring program to be implemented during pre-construction, construction and operation of the project to assess the effectiveness of the mitigation measures proposed, evaluate any changes in invertebrate populations and inform an adaptive management approach.

1.3 Management structure and plan updates

1.3.1 Management structure This plan provides a framework for the parts of the upgrade where the subject threatened invertebrate species and their habitat have been identified for specific management and monitoring actions. This plan provides up-to-date information based on the results of targeted surveys which have identified the



occurrence of threatened invertebrate species within the project area, and those that are likely to be impacted, or at a greater risk of impact.

This plan identifies the known populations of the subject threatened invertebrate species, the likely impacts to invertebrates as a result of project activities, and specifies mitigation measures that are to be put in place.

This plan also provides for monitoring and reporting programs, by describing the final monitoring sites, methods, variables and timing of this program (Section 8). Details have also been provided for the parameters of site selection for the final monitoring sites (control and monitoring sites) which have been identified through targeted pre-construction surveys undertaken for the project.

This plan operates in conjunction with the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), project specific flora and fauna management plan (FFMP), Urban Design and Landscape Plan (UDLP) and aspects associated with updates and delivery incorporated into the Biodiversity Mitigation Framework. An overview of how this TIMP relates to other project documentation is provided in Figure 1-2.

General responsibilities for environmental management will be outlined in the CEMP and FFMP. Following approval of the plan, the construction contractor(s) and the contractors ecologists engaged for the relevant project sections would be responsible to oversee implementation of the plan.

Roads and Maritime have finalised this plan in consultation with the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E), NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and Commonwealth Department of the Environment (DoE).



Figure 1-2 Project documentation overview



1.3.2 Plan updates This plan is intended to be a dynamic document subject to continual improvement. This TIMP has been updated to ensure it incorporates the results of targeted pre-clearance threatened invertebrate surveys, and meets mitigation and management measures committed to in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and SPIR and complies with MCoA D8.

Roads and Maritime have updated this plan in two versions. The first update (Version 1 of the TIMP) incorporated the majority of independent expert review and comments. This was completed in November 2013 and was included with the submission of the SPIR documentation. The expert comments are summarised in Appendix A.

The second and third updates (Version 3 of the TIMP), this version, has been undertaken to address the approval conditions received, agency comments provided, any remaining subject matter expert comments, and to incorporate results of targeted threatened invertebrate surveys completed to date. A summary of how independent expert and agency comments have been addressed is detailed in Appendix A.

Ongoing monitoring, reviewing and amending of the TIMP and its effectiveness will continue as necessary during construction and operation phases of the project. This plan will be reviewed annually or following a trigger event. Triggers for the amendment of this plan will include unexpected finds of populations of threatened invertebrates or changes to project activities proposed in areas known to contain populations of threatened invertebrates. In such instances, an assessment of the adequacy of the Plan should be undertaken and any new measures proposed. If new information is identified that is relevant to the species in this plan, the Plan will be reviewed to assess any changes that may be required.

A summary of the process for updating this plan is illustrated in Figure 1-3.



Figure 1-3 Process to update and finalise the management plan



1.4 Plan authors and expert review

1.4.1 Authors Version 1

The first version of the TIMP was prepared by Chris Thomson of Jacobs (formerly Sinclair Knight Mertz (SKM)) in liaison with field entomologist Dr Lindsay Popple of Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd (BAAM). This plan addressed the majority of expert reviewer comments from Dr Don Sands (as outlined in Appendix A and Appendix B).

A summary of all personnel involved in the production of this TIMP (including those that supported the survey effort) their experience, and qualifications is summarised in Table 1-2.

Version 2 and 3

Pre-construction surveys for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth and Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle were undertaken in March and April 2014 by BAAM Pty Ltd. Dr Lindsay Popple led these surveys, and his experience and qualifications are summarised in Table 1-2. Revisions to this TIMP (Version 2 and Version 3) completed to incorporate the results of pre-construction surveys and address remaining expert and agency comments. Revisions have been prepared by Mitch Taylor and Berlinda Ezzy of Amec Foster Wheeler.

An overview of the experience and qualifications of contributors to each version of this TIMP is provided in Table 1-2.

Table 1-2 Authors qualifications and experience Personnel Qualifications Experience Dr Lindsay Popple BAAM

Bachelor of Applied Science PhD in Entomology

Dr Lindsay Popple holds a PhD in entomology and has co-ordinated flora and fauna surveys across Australia since 1997. He has more than 10 years research experience in the field of entomology, with specialist expertise in the taxonomy, ecology, phylogenetics and biogeography of animals and plants, and has published in a wide range of peer-reviewed journals. Since joining BAAM in 2011, Lindsay has prepared species management programs for both large and small-scale projects.

Chris Thompson Jacobs (Formally SKM)

Bachelor of Applied Science Grad. Cert. in Natural Resources

Chris has 17 years of professional experience in the fields of ecology and natural resource management. He is highly experienced in the design and implementation of ecological monitoring programs, flora and fauna surveys, threatened fauna management plans and ecological impact assessment. He has completed numerous studies for clients such as the Roads and Maritime and the Department of Defence. Chris has considerable experience assisting clients with meeting project Conditions of Approval in relation to managing and monitoring impacts on biodiversity. This includes the preparation and implementation of species-specific management plans and monitoring programs. Chris has comprehensive knowledge of fauna monitoring programs, having coordinated numerous targeted fauna surveys and monitoring programs throughout the Northern Rivers, Riverina, the ACT, Sydney Basin and the Hunter Valley.

Dr Don Sands CSIRO

Masters of Science PhD in Entomology

Dr Don Sands is an insect taxonomist and ecologist, with a long research career with CSIRO. He has published more than 120 scientific papers and five books. As a Post-retirement Fellow he wrote two major works, Biological Control of Arthropods in Australia (with Dr DF Waterhouse, ACIAR) and The Action Plan for Australian Butterflies (with Prof. TR New), the latter to review the conservation status of all Australian butterflies. Don’s conservation research began in the 1990s (e.g. study of the Richmond birdwing butterfly, Ornithoptera richmondia) and was followed by a research project on the Queen Alexandra’s Birdwing Butterfly (Ornithoptera alexandrae), a large and spectacular threatened species of international concern. His studies with CSIRO on fruit piercing moths led to the discovery in 1987 of the Pink Underwing Moth (southern subspecies), subsequently recognised as endangered (EPBC Act and TSC Act). Most recently Don published the description of this moth and provided a name for this new and unnamed sub-species, the Southern Pink Underwing Moth (Phyllodes imperialis smithersi).

Mitch Taylor Amec Foster Wheeler

Bachelor of Environmental Science

Mitch is a senior ecologist with 10 years consulting experience in Queensland and New South Wales. Mitch is a fauna specialist and has led a number of targeted fauna surveys and management strategies in Qld and NSW. Mitch has completed impact



Personnel Qualifications Experience assessments in relation to threatened fauna and developed tailored mitigation strategies and monitoring programs. Mitch is licensed by the appropriate authorities to undertake flora and fauna investigations. Mitch’s experience in NSW includes: • Threatened microbat management plan development and management in the

northern rivers and south western deserts of NSW for mining and quarry development.

• Targeted threatened fauna assessments and impact assessments throughout the northern rivers of NSW for various large scale residential developments and quarry developments.

• In-field implementation of threatened fauna management plans including one of Australia’s largest macropod management programs.

• Threatened flora and ecological community assessments for large scale residential developments in the Lismore, Ballina and Grafton areas.

Berlinda Ezzy Amec Foster Wheeler

Bachelor of Applied Science, Natural Systems and Wildlife Management (Honours)

Berlinda has 14 years of professional experience including working in the areas of environmental planning, impact assessments, ecology and environmental offsets. Berlinda’s experience includes managing flora and fauna studies, delivering environmental offsets including application of various offset assessment tools and developing threatened species management plans. Berlinda has comprehensive knowledge and experience with State and Commonwealth legislation regarding environmental impact assessment, threatened species protection and environmental offset policies. Berlinda also has experience in natural resource management including vegetation management, fire management, weed management and monitoring.

1.4.2 Expert review An expert review of the plan was undertaken in August 2013 by Dr Don Sands. Dr Sands is an insect taxonomist and ecologist with a long research career with CSIRO. He has published more than 120 scientific papers and five books. As Post-retirement Fellow he wrote ‘The Action Plan for Australian Butterflies’ (with Professor TR New) which reviews the conservation status of all Australian butterflies.

Dr Sands’ studies with CSIRO on fruit piercing moths led to the discovery in 1987 of the Pink Underwing Moth (southern subspecies), subsequently recognised as endangered (EPBC Act and TSC Act). Recently Don published the description of this species, providing a name for this new and previously unnamed subspecies, the Southern Pink Underwing Moth (Phyllodes imperialis smithersi).

A summary of Dr Don Sand’s experience is provided in Table 1-2. A curriculum vitae which contains a list of the relevant published works of Dr Don Sands and his full expert review is provided in Appendix B.

All expert recommendations have now been assessed and, where appropriate, incorporated into this TIMP (Version 3). A summary of incorporated expert recommendations is provided in Appendix A.

1.5 Consultation Roads and Maritime have consulted with DP&E, EPA and DoE during the development of this plan. Each agency was provided a copy of the Draft TIMP in April 2015. Feedback received and Roads and Maritime response to issues raised have been included in Appendix A of the TIMP.

A summary of the consultation undertaken in finalising the plan is outlined in Table 1-3.

Table 1-3 Summary of agency consultation and how comments have been addressed Document Version

Review Date

Review Agency

Summary of Comment/s Section of TIMP Addressing Comments

Version 2 06/05/2015 EPA The EPA considers best practice regarding all no-go zones, exclusion zones etc to be under the control/responsibility of one person only.

The project contractor has been defined as the responsible party for management of exclusion zones.



Document Version

Review Date

Review Agency

Summary of Comment/s Section of TIMP Addressing Comments

Version 2 23/04/2015 DoE Three successive annual monitoring is unlikely to provide statistically robust data to determine the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures. Impacts may become apparent later than in a three year period.

Section 8.2.1 defines monitoring as occurring as per as per Condition D8(k).

Version 2 23/04/2015 DoE Impacts from fragmentation of habitat does not appear to have been satisfactorily addressed.

Table 6-1 and Table 6-2 have been updated to address fragmentation.

Version 2 23/04/2015 DoE Avoidance measures such as route alternatives considered/implemented are not discussed in the Plan.

Section 4.2 discusses the assessment of avoidance measures during detailed design.

Version 2 19/05/2015 DPE Add movement of moth larvae/pupae as a mitigation measure.

Table 4-1 has been updated regarding suggested additional mitigation measures.

Version 2 19/05/2015 DPE Consider the use of jersey barriers to physically stop vehicles and plant entering exclusion zones.

The use of Jersey Barriers is not considered necessary. No go boundary fencing will be installed with strict management control to ensure no unauthorised access. Construction still needs to allow for some access to undertake and maintain revegetation works.



2. Threatened invertebrate populations 2.1 Project overview This TIMP relates specifically to the Southern Pink Underwing Moth (Phyllodes imperialis smithersi) and the Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle (Nurus atlas). A brief outline of the habitat requirements for these species and their status under the NSW TSC Act and the Commonwealth EPBC Act is provided in Table 2-1. Further detail is provided in the species profiles in Appendix C. Additionally, the Richmond Birdwing Butterfly (Ornithoptera richmondia), while not a threatened species, will be recorded should it occur during surveys for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth.

It is noted that the known and potential habitats for these two threatened invertebrates comprise a vegetation community which is listed as a Critically Endangered Ecological Community (referred to as Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia) under the EPBC Act and an Endangered Ecological Community under the TSC Act (referred to as Lowland Rainforest in NSW North Coast and Sydney Basin Bioregion). This vegetation community in proximity to the Project has been historically referred to as the ‘Big Scrub’ which formed a large remnant of lowland rainforest communities through the broader region. This vegetation community is referred to herein as Lowland Rainforest. A specific management plan has been prepared for Lowland Rainforest communities that describes their extent across the project and mitigation and monitoring measures. The plan is titled the Threatened Rainforest Communities and Rainforest Plants Management Plan (TRCRPMP).

Although Lowland Rainforest occurs throughout several sections of the Project area (i.e. Sections 1, 2, 3, 10 and 11), the distribution of the Southern Pink Underwing Moth and Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle extends mostly over south-eastern Queensland with the southern limit extending into northern NSW to the Richmond River. As such this TIMP (and the targeted surveys that inform it) have been confined to Project sections within the known range of the threatened invertebrate species; being Sections 10 and 11. Table 2-1 Threatened invertebrate species conservation status and habitat requirements Species Status Preferred habitats EPBC Act TSC Act Southern Pink Underwing Moth (Phyllodes imperialis smithersi)

Endangered Endangered The Pink Underwing Moth (Phyllodes imperialis) is known from Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, New Britain, New Ireland, New Caledonia and eastern Australia (Sands 2012). The southern subspecies (Phyllodes imperialis smithersi) is restricted to subtropical eastern Australia from near Gympie in Queensland south to near Urunga in New South Wales (Sands 2012). Breeding (i.e. records of the larval form) has been recorded from Mary Cairncross (Sands 2012) and Witta (Herbison-Evans et al. 2011) in south-east Queensland, and from Middle Pocket (Herbison-Evans et al.2011) and near Ballina (in northern NSW). Whilst this project has revealed the second only breeding record of the species in NSW, it should be noted that Sands (2012) also states that “larvae or adults have been photographed or collected” at several additional locations. These include Border Ranges, Richmond Range, Richmond River, Billinudgel, Dorrigo, Rosewood River, Bellingen, Huonville and Bellinger Island (Sands 2012). This suggests that one or more of these locations also contain breeding records. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that the revelation of a breeding record in association with the area of this project is a significant finding. The known distribution of the Southern Pink Underwing Moth is identical to that of its larval food plant (host plant), the vine Carronia multisepalea. Larvae of the southern subspecies of moth are dependent on one food plant vine, Carronia multisepalea, found only in rainforests of north-eastern NSW and south-eastern Queensland, including areas of Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia (Endangered). In discussing the moth’s habitat requirements, Sands (2012) notes that it “is confined to notophyll vine forest where the food plant, C. multisepalea, is an uncommon endemic vine in eastern Australia, growing on rich volcanic slopes and riparian or alluvial soils.” Unlike other fruit-piercing moths, Southern Pink Underwing Moth lacks the adaptation to pierce fruit directly. Instead, it is known to feed on damaged fruit, including Ficus spp. (including F. opposita, F. coronate), Waterhousea floribunda, and Syzygium spp. (Syzygium australe, S. smithii and other local species (Syzygium australe, S. smithii and other local species) (Sands 2012), and has been photographed feeding on a damaged Custard Apple



Species Status Preferred habitats EPBC Act TSC Act

(Herbison-Evans et al.2011). Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle (Nurus atlas)

N/A Endangered Until recently, Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle (Nurus atlas) was known only from the Alstonville-Lismore district, which has been considered to be the last refuge of what was presumably a wider distribution in association with the Big Scrub (DECC 2012). More recently it was also discovered in an area of mature rainforest just outside of the project to the north of Wardell; a minor range extension. It is also closely associated with the TEC Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia (Endangered). It is a flightless, predatory beetle that occurs in association with rainforest on rich red volcanic soils (DECC 2012; Monteith and Turco n. d.). Adult beetles build characteristic burrows under rocks, logs and tree roots. Both sexes remain in their burrows for much of the year, although evidence from pitfall trapping suggests that males become more mobile in the wet season (Monteith and Turco n. d.). The life cycle of this species and especially the larval stage, are essentially unknown.

2.2 Existing knowledge Details of the known and expected distributions of each of the threatened invertebrate species within the Project are described in Table 2-2. Locations of the invertebrate records and habitats within the Project area are described as a result of targeted surveys commissioned by Roads and Maritime and the Atlas of NSW Wildlife as of 10 December 2014. Records of the species and confirmed habitats are illustrated in Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2. Further detail of threatened invertebrate records and confirmed habitats in proximity to the Project is provided in Section 3.

Table 2-2 Known and expected distributions of threatened invertebrate species within the Project area Species Identified records and project section Potential habitat

Southern Pink Underwing Moth (Phyllodes imperialis smithersi)

Records of Southern Pink Underwing Moth are restricted to Lowland Rainforest outside and to the west of Section 10 of the Project between Coolgardie Road and Wardell. The area, mapped under the category of known breeding habitat, is restricted to two large rainforest polygons covering 33.2 ha. 118 records of the host plant and 78 records of Southern Pink Underwing Moth have been obtained in this area from the separate surveys (BAAM 2012, 2013). Pre-construction targeted surveys (BAAM 2014) identified populations of Carronia multisepalea, the Southern Pink Underwing Moth’s host plant, outside of those found during the BAAM 2012 and 2013 surveys, increasing the area of potential breeding habitat (results of surveys are outlined in Section 3). No host plants were found inside the Project boundary.

No breeding habitat or host plants found within the Project boundary. Known and potential breeding habitat has been identified adjacent to Sections 10 and 11. (refer to Figure 3-2 )

Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle (Nurus atlas)

Surveys were undertaken to identify if Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle was located within the Project boundary and in areas up to 400 m from the Project boundary. Records of Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle are restricted to rainforest outside and to the west of Section 10 of the project in a contiguous patch of rainforest between Coolgardie Road and Wardell. This comprises the only area of known and potential habitat for the beetle in the vicinity of the Project.

No habitat found within the Project boundary. Known and potential habitat has been identified adjacent to Section 10. (Figure 3-2).

2.3 Threats The decline of Southern Pink Underwing Moth and Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle populations may be attributed to loss and fragmentation of habitat due to land development. Other specific potential threats to this species and / or its habitat associated with development include: ● Dispersal across fragmented landscapes ● Disruption of movements or general disorientation due to artificial lighting ● Increased weed invasion leading to habitat degradation; and ● Fragmentation of habitats from disturbance may result in in-breeding depression.



3. Targeted surveys The body of data collected for the Project has been gathered over a period of nine years (2005 - 2014). This TIMP draws on this body of data, including surveys undertaken during preparation of the EIS, and the findings of Post-EIS targeted surveys for threatened invertebrates completed by BAAM in 2013 and 2014. A summary of all relevant surveys conducted to date is provided in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 Summary of relevant ecological surveys undertaken to date Project section Survey Period Purpose 1-2 16 - 21 Oct 2006 Mapping of vegetation communities

Nov 2011 Habitat surveys

5-9 Dec 2011 Vegetation mapping in areas not covered in previous surveys.

3 - 5 2-7 July 2007 Mapping of vegetation communities

23-27 Aug 2010 Vegetation mapping of flora species on soft soil areas Additional flora surveys

6-8 May – June 2005 Mapping of vegetation communities 9-11 Mar 2005

Aug 2006 Aug – Sept 2010

Mapping of vegetation communities

16-20 Jan 2012 Re-survey of previously identified flora populations to identify any changes in distribution

10-11 March 2006 Targeted survey for Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail 6-10 Feb 2012 Targeted threatened invertebrate surveys for Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail, Laced

Fritillary, Southern Pink Underwing Moth, Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle, Shorter Rainforest Ground Beetle, Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly, and Richmond Birdwing.

10-11 Feb – Mar 2012 Targeted survey for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth and Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle within the project and in areas up to 400 m from the Project

10-11 Feb – Mar 2013 Targeted survey for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth within the Project and in areas up to 400 m from the Project

1 – 11

Feb-Mar 2014 Mar – May 2014 July 2014

Targeted vegetation community surveys to confirm locations of previously recorded species and identify any new species Record location and extent of threatened communities and flora species

10 and 11 Feb 2014 Targeted rainforest community survey and rainforest plant survey Identify suitable monitoring sites for establishment of monitoring plots.

1-11 Mar-May 2014 Sept 2014

Inform ongoing monitoring through the establishment of permanent sites for monitoring during construction and operation. As required, mark recorded threatened species to inform and develop translocation strategies.

10-11 Mar-Apr 2014 Pre-construction Survey and Nocturnal Monitoring for Conservation Significant Invertebrates

1-11 November 2014 Targeted surveys and habitat assessments for the Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly.

3.1 BAAM (2012 and 2013) – targeted surveys Targeted surveys for Southern Pink Underwing Moth were conducted between February and March 2012, and during February and July of 2013 by Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd (BAAM). These surveys were successful in locating both this species and its host plant in rainforest habitat within 400 m of the Project.

The results of the surveys enabled the identification of known and potential habitat for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth, based on: (1) the confirmed presence of larvae/eggs; (2) presence/absence of the host plant; and (3) the occurrence of soft-fruiting rainforest trees, which may provide foraging habitat for this species (BAAM 2013).



Habitat areas have been categorised as follows:

• Known breeding habitat for Southern Pink Underwing Moth where host plant and larval records occur and where the Southern Pink Underwing Moth is considered likely to occur;

• Potential breeding habitat for Southern Pink Underwing Moth where the host plant has been detected, but where moth larvae have not been recorded; and

• Potential foraging habitat for Southern Pink Underwing Moth where the moth and host vine have not yet been detected.

A population of Southern Pink Underwing Moth was confirmed as occurring in larger rainforest remnants to the south of Coolgardie Road and west of the existing Pacific Highway adjacent to Section 10 of the Project. The 33.2 ha area of known breeding habitat occurs in two large remnant blocks (25.5 ha and 7.6 ha respectively) as illustrated in Figure 3-1.

Potential breeding and foraging habitat for the moth has also been identified in the surrounding landscape. During the February 2013 survey for this species, 45 larvae and nine eggs were recorded in the most southerly area of known breeding habitat, an area where host vine density was >10 plants per hectare. Despite multiple surveys in smaller fragments of potential habitat where the vines are present across two years during the breeding season of the moth, no larvae were found in these fragments.

3.2 BAAM (2014) – pre-construction baseline survey and nocturnal monitoring for conservation significant invertebrates

A pre-construction survey and nocturnal monitoring study for Southern Pink Underwing Moth and Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle was conducted between 4 March and 9 April 2014 (BAAM 2014) to build on information presented within the EIS (2012) and SPIR (2013) and establish a baseline for monitoring. The BAAM report summarising the surveys and findings are provided in Appendix E.

The objectives of the study were to:

● Document the occurrence of Southern Pink Underwing Moth (and its host plant, Carronia multisepalea) and Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle

● Establish baseline monitoring transects for the invertebrate species and the host plant listed above; and

● Perform nocturnal monitoring of adult Southern Pink Underwing Moth and Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle.

The survey of additional polygons and revisiting the areas surveyed previously allowed a refinement of past mapping.

3.2.1 Southern Pink Underwing Moth habitat assessments Survey Method: Counts and GPS records of the host plant Carronia multisepalea were recorded wherever it was encountered. Thorough searches were undertaken along meandering transects through patches of the host plant for larvae and eggs of Southern Pink Underwing Moth. Notes were taken on the health, growth form and sex (where possible) of encountered host plants. Data collected within each polygon of known or potentially suitable habitat, and at each monitoring transect for Southern Pink Underwing Moth included:

● Number, sex and form of individuals of the host plant Carronia multisepalea ● Leaf characteristics (in particular, presence of soft, pale new leaf growth) of individuals of Carronia

multisepalea ● Presence, abundance and age of any Southern Pink Underwing Moth larvae found on host plants ● Number of fleshy-fruited native tree species ● Percent cover of native and exotic plant species in each stratum; and ● Percent canopy cover.



Areas of potential and known habitat were assessed using the following criteria (modified from BAAM 2013):

● Host plant (Carronia multisepalea) was detected during the surveys ● Number of native fleshy-fruited tree species (which potentially provide food for the adult moth)

detected during the survey was >20 ● Patch exhibited natural canopy gaps (allowing for potential recruitment of the host plant) ● Canopy cover comprised >50% native species ● Number of rainforest indicator species (from TSSC 2011) was >30; and ● Included areas where canopy cover was dominantly ≥65%.

Parcels of potential habitat identified during previous surveys for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth which supported its host plant Carronia multisepalea, were reinspected during the 2014 surveys. Inspections documented the health and status of Carronia multisepalea populations.

Results: During these surveys two new populations of Carronia multisepalea were identified in previously uninspected areas proximate to those recorded populations (as presented in Figure 3-1). It should be noted that no Carronia multisepalea have been identified within the Project boundary or within 20 m of the Project construction footprint (BAAM, 2014).

Pre-construction surveys also noted the presence of Pararistolochia praevenosa (the host vine species for the locally significant Richmond Birdwing) occurring in the same habitats as Carronia multisepalea also noted by Sands (2012). Further, surveys noted several adult and larvae of the Richmond Birdwing within the study area in combination with populations of its host vine, indicating this habitat is potentially an important breeding area for the Richmond Birdwing (BAAM 2014). Although this species is not considered to be threatened under the TSC Act or EPBC Act, impacts to and mitigation measures undertaken for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth may also affect this species respectfully given their host species occur in similar habitats including those potentially impacted by the project. Positive rehabilitation and mitigations measures undertaken as part of the project would likely benefit the Richmond Birdwing should they be successful for the target threatened invertebrates.

3.2.2 Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle habitat assessments Survey Method: Habitat assessments were performed in areas of Lowland Rainforest, making note of the cover of rocks and logs and general suitability of remnant and regrowth areas for Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle.

Meandering searches were conducted in areas of suitable habitat, checking under rocks, logs and plant roots for characteristic burrows. Areas where burrows have previously been recorded were checked. GPS records were taken for any potential new burrows.

Results: All suitable habitat assessed within proximity to the Project area, coincides with potential habitat for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth. The extent of potential habitat for the Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle and known observations is shown in Figure 3-2.

3.2.3 Monitoring and control transect site selection Monitoring transects were identified to enable future monitoring of Carronia multisepalea, Southern Pink Underwing Moth and Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle populations within suitable habitats adjacent to the Project and at control sites not likely to be impacted by the Project. Suitable locations for the transects were identified for the Project with reference to the previous surveys by BAAM (2012, 2013) which have considered species records and the location of Carronia multisepalea populations.

Two suitable control sites were identified using occurrence data provided in the Atlas of Living Australia portal. Five transects were established for monitoring both Southern Pink Underwing Moth and Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle adjacent to the Project. These included locations where the presence of these species has been confirmed during previous surveys. An additional transect for each of these species was identified at control sites in each of Davis Scrub Nature Reserve and Victoria Park Nature Reserve. Each transect included multiple individuals of the host plant for



Southern Pink Underwing Moth, Carronia multisepalea. Both of these areas contain remnant Lowland Rainforest on rich red ferrosols formed on a basaltic plateau (Jenkins and Morand 2002).

The 2014 pre-construction survey report notes a difference in soil types between the control transects and the monitoring transects. The soils supported within the monitoring transects and their associated habitat contains a dark brown clay loam soil, which shows a tendency to be aggregate and is not overly friable (BAAM, 2014), whereas the control transects are characterised by rich red ferrosols (Jenkins and Morand 2002) and highly suitable for burrowing (BAAM 2014).

The final location of the impact monitoring sites and control sites are illustrated in Figure 3-3.

ROADS & MARITIME SERVICES - 651570 - W2B Species Management Plans LOCATION DIAGRAM

Amec Foster Wheeler does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the map and does not make any warranty about the data.Amec Foster Wheeler is not under any liability to the user for any loss or damage (including consequential loss or damage) which the user may suffer resulting from the use of this map.

Path

: W:\P

RO

JEC

TS\E

I\Roa

ds &

Mar

itim

e S

ervi

ces\

6515

70 -

W2B

Spe

cies

Man

agem

ent P

lans

\2.0

_Pro

ject

_Del

iver

y\G

IS\In

verte

brat

es.m

xd

_̂_̂

_̂_̂

_̂_̂

_̂_̂_̂ _̂̂_

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂_̂_̂̂_̂_̂_̂_

_̂_̂

!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

PAC

IFIC

HIG

HW

AY

Richmon

d Rive

r

Gum Creek

161000

160000

159000

158000

157000

156000

155000154000

153000

152000

151000

Section 10

Section 11

(A3) GCS GDA 1994

1:25,000

LEGEND

Figure 3-1Records and Location of

Potential Habitat for SouthernPink Underwing Moth

WORK REQUEST NUMBER: RMS

DATA SOURCES:Topographic Vector Series 3 © Commonwealth of Australia(Geoscience Australia) 2006

ISSUE DATE21/04/2015

09/04/2015

AUTHORJH

JH

QA CHECKJC

JC

APPROVEDBE

BE

0 250 500

Metres

¹MAP REV.

0

A

REVISION NOTEIssued for Use

Issued for Review

Chainage (metres)

Alignment

Section change

Project boundary

Southern Pink Underwing Moth

!( Records (BAAM)

_̂ Host plant records (BAAM)

Known breeding habitat (host plant plus larval records)

Potential breeding habitat

Potential foraging habitat



Path

: W:\P

RO

JEC

TS\E

I\Roa

ds &

Mar

itim

e S

ervi

ces\

6515

70 -

W2B

Spe

cies

Man

agem

ent P

lans

\2.0

_Pro

ject

_Del

iver

y\G

IS\In

verte

brat

es.m

xd

!(

PAC

IFIC

HIG

HW

AY

Richmon

d Rive

r

Gum Creek

161000

160000

159000

158000

157000

156000

155000154000

153000

152000

151000

Section 10

Section 11

(A3) GCS GDA 1994

1:25,000

LEGEND




09/04/2015

AUTHORJH

JH

QA CHECKJC

JC

APPROVEDBE

BE

0 250 500

Metres

¹MAP REV.

0

A


Issued for Review

Chainage (metres)

Alignment

Section change

Project boundary

Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle

!( Records (BAAM)

Known habitat

Potential habitat

Figure 3-2Records and Location ofPotential Habitat for AtlasRainforest Ground Beetle



Path

: W:\P

RO

JEC

TS\E

I\Roa

ds &

Mar

itim

e S

ervi

ces\

6515

70 -

W2B

Spe

cies

Man

agem

ent P

lans

\2.0

_Pro

ject

_Del

iver

y\G

IS\In

verte

brat

es.m

xd

Davis Scrub Nature Reserve

Victoria Park

PACI

FIC

HIGH

WAY

BRUXNER HIGHWAY

Gum

Creek

RichmondR

iver

163000

162000

161000

160000

159000

158000

157000

156000

155000154000

153000

152000

Section 10

Section 11

(A3) GCS GDA 1994

1:35,000

LEGEND




09/04/2015

AUTHORJH

JH

QA CHECKJC

JC

APPROVEDBE

BE

0 250 500

Metres

¹MAP REV.

0

A


Issued for Review

Chainage (metres)

Alignment

Section change

Project boundary

TransectsControl site

Monitoring site

Species habitat areas

Figure 3-3Monitoring Transect

Locations



3.2.4 Nocturnal monitoring of transects Timing of Surveys: Pre-construction surveys for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth and Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle were conducted at each of the five monitoring transects and two control sites (Figure 3-3) for one night per week between 4 March and 9 April 2014.

Survey Method: Nocturnal monitoring was conducted for one night per week over six consecutive weeks. Over-ripe banana baits were prepared and deployed during the afternoon prior to each monitoring session for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth. The baits were suspended from tree branches within arms-reach at 10 m intervals along each transect. For the final monitoring event two additional baits consisting of ripe custard apple were deployed at each trapping location to observe the potential influence of using a different bait type on monitoring success.

Each transect was 50 m in length, with some deviation from a straight line to improve detection of Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle in areas of potentially suitable microhabitat. The start and end of each transect was recorded by GPS. Flagging tape was used to mark 10 m intervals along each transect to facilitate the deployment of baits for Southern Pink Underwing Moth. Photographic records were taken at each cardinal compass point at the centre of each transect.

Monitoring was conducted for approximately 20 minutes along each transect, between 6.30 and 10.30 pm. Night vision goggles and a night vision LED torch were used to scan each bait for signs of moth activity. Baits were removed sequentially after being checked. The ground and any previously identified burrows in the vicinity of each transect was checked for signs of Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle activity. Small LED torches were used to negotiate areas of difficult terrain along each transect and during transit. Use of these torches was kept to a minimum as far as possible during the monitoring to minimise potential light disturbance.

Notes on the invertebrate activity and weather conditions were kept for each transect during each weekly monitoring event.

Results: A single larvae of a Southern Pink Underwing Moth was found at one of the control sites during establishment of the control transects (28°51.994°S 153°24.355’E). Despite thorough searches in patches of Carronia multisepalea, including searches at locations where the presence of Southern Pink Underwing Moth was confirmed during previous surveys (BAAM 2012, 2013), no signs of moth larvae or eggs were observed in the study area during the current survey.

No individuals of the Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle were found at the identified monitoring sites despite thorough searches of suitable habitat, including habitats where the species has been previously confirmed. A single potential burrow was found at one monitoring site; however was determined to be inactive. Numerous beetle burrows were identified within or proximate to the established transects. Surveys also incidentally noted many more burrows throughout the habitats within the Davis Scrub Nature Reserve and Victoria Park Nature Reserve then those habitats found within and adjacent to the Project including the monitoring sites.

Recommendation for future monitoring: Future monitoring for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth will be conducted over a five month period annually. Monitoring will occur one night per month for five months during the warmest part of the year (November through to March). This is intended to reduce the chances of intra-seasonal variation affecting the chances of detection.

Future monitoring for Southern Pink Underwing Moth should consider past rainfall that could influence activity of this species and hence monitoring results. Monitoring conducted under more suitable seasonal conditions will assess the efficacy of using bait traps and monthly survey units as a monitoring approach. Further, this methodology should be reviewed against the collected baseline data and historical data given the low level of presence/absence results obtained during pre-clearance surveys.

Future monitoring for Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle in Lowland Rainforest adjacent to the Project will be conducted during construction and post construction in accordance with Section 8. Future nocturnal monitoring for Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle should be conducted following an extensive, dedicated search for burrows in the identified monitoring sites and should proceed only after one or more burrows have been located.



4. Potential impacts and management approach

The following Section provides an overview of the potential direct and indirect impacts to threatened invertebrate populations as informed by targeted threatened invertebrate surveys for the Project. It describes the potential impacts during the pre-construction, construction and post-construction (operational) stages of the Project to the threatened invertebrates. The proposed mitigation approach presented is in the EIS/SPIR and documented in Sections 4 to 8 of this TIMP.

4.1 Potential impacts associated with the project

4.1.1 Southern Pink Underwing Moth The Project will not directly impact known or potential breeding habitat for Southern Pink Underwing Moth. The Project passes adjacent to the eastern and southern edges of lowland rainforest patches containing known and potential breeding habitat for this species (Figure 3-1). The closest Southern Pink Underwing record is approximately 30 m from the edge of the Project boundary, with known and potential habitat mapped directly adjacent the Project boundary.

Approximately 4.89 ha of potential foraging habitat for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth will require removal and therefore will be directly impacted by the Project. Removal of this habitat is not expected to fragment the remaining potential moth habitat as:

● The 4.89 ha of potential foraging habitat are separate patches to the south and east of the road corridor that are not directly connected to the larger patches of known and potential breeding habitat for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth. These rainforest patches are smaller, fragmented areas and habitats remaining will stay intact; and

● About 51.3 ha of known and potential breeding habitat for Southern Pink Underwing Moth remain in the vicinity of the Project, including an additional 36.8 ha of potential foraging habitat.

Potential indirect impacts to Southern Pink Underwing Moth and its host plant (Carronia multisepalea) may include impacts from a variety of edge effects including artificial lighting, road noise, dust and weeds. Another potential indirect impact to the Southern Pink Underwing Moth is exposure to increased natural light penetration and increased predation as a result of newly formed habitat edges. This is not expected to be an impact as a result of the Project as the area surrounding the known breeding habitat for the moth is a paddock and therefore, already an edge. In the area adjacent to this known breeding habitat, the Project will be sited within the paddock and as a consequence, no new edge would be created. As no change to the current habitat edge is anticipated, no significant impacts associated with natural light penetration or predation are expected.

Hydrological changes and soil desiccation are not considered likely to be significant impacts, as all known breeding habitat for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth is sited upslope relative to the Project.

4.1.2 Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle The Project avoids direct impacts to areas identified as known or potential habitat for Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle. The closest known record occurs approximately 150 m from the Project boundary.

Indirect impacts to Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle may involve disruption of movement corridors or general disorientation due to artificial lighting, as well as potential compromise of areas of known habitat adjacent to the project through a variety of indirect edge effects (including artificial lighting, road noise, dust and weeds).



4.2 Detailed design considerations An objective of the early stage detailed design process is to position infrastructure so as to avoid habitat for threatened invertebrates wherever possible. This includes, where appropriate, placing construction compounds, ancillary infrastructure, access tracks and stockpile areas within cleared or disturbed areas, and away from threatened plants to avoid unnecessary clearing and indirect impacts. Another objective is to reduce the indirect impacts of road noise, dust, weeds and artificial light spill on surrounding known and potential breeding habitat for Southern Pink Underwing Moth and Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle.

To meet these objectives Roads and Maritime during detailed design for Section 10 and 11 will investigate the potential to reduce vegetation clearing where potential foraging habitat is identified. Also in relation to lighting the majority of the road corridor in the vicinity of habitat for threatened invertebrates will be unlit. The only exception is where lighting is an essential requirement for road safety (e.g. on round-a-bouts, interchanges, and merging and diverging lanes). Where lighting has been identified as required for road safety, lighting recognised as having a low attractiveness for insects is being investigated to be used. Roads and Maritime is investigating the potential to use high pressure sodium lights wherever the Project falls within 500 m of known or potential breeding habitat for Southern Pink Underwing Moth. These types of lamp are widely used in street lighting and have been demonstrated to attract significantly fewer insects than other viable options, such as metal halide lamps (Eisenbeis, G. and F. Hassel 2000). LED lamps have also been demonstrated to attract fewer insects, however the use of LED lamps for street lighting purposes has yet not been approved by Roads and Maritime Services. If the use of LED lamps prior to the commencement of construction in the aforementioned habitat areas is approved, these lights will be used for street lighting.

Modelling of a combination of the above lamp types in preliminary designs of lighting for the Project suggest that the planned position of street lighting would not lead to light spill entering directly into areas of threatened invertebrate habitat. The modelling suggests that light spill would only affect areas 150 m away from the edge of known threatened invertebrate habitat.

Where particularly bright light sources have been identified as required (notably the Coolgardie interchange), shielding is recommended for each light source to shield the light from areas of threatened invertebrate habitat, whilst allowing the required illumination of the road surface for road safety. Consideration is recommended for the following shielding options:

● Physical barrier to horizontal light spill on the pole structure as well as its final install height ● Physical barriers (similar to noise barriers) on the edges of the road boundary; and ● Thick plantings of vegetation along the road margin to reduce light penetration.

Consideration of the final height of installed lights may also influence light spill. Where possible the installation of lights at the lowest, safe height possible will be considered to assist in the reduction of light spill into threatened invertebrate habitat.

Implementation of the above recommendations for artificial lighting design near known breeding habitat and host plants is expected to reduce impacts from the Project on both Southern Pink Underwing Moth and Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle to a negligible level.

Where possible, final planning for construction compounds, ancillary infrastructure, access tracks and stockpile areas will be placed within cleared or disturbed areas, and away from threatened species habitats to avoid unnecessary clearing and indirect impacts

4.3 Mitigation and monitoring approach A number of measures to mitigate and monitor the impact of the Project on threatened invertebrates during construction and operation are proposed. These measures were initially identified in the EIS (Biodiversity Working Paper), and the Submissions/Preferred Infrastructure Report (SPIR). In general these measures relate to: ● Development of a sound method for undertaking pre-clearing surveys ● A suitable fauna handling procedure



● Provision of exclusion fencing to protect areas of invertebrate habitat to be retained during construction

● A staged habitat removal process ● A method for the re-use of woody debris and bedrock (habitat for Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle) ● Identification of procedures for habitat rehabilitation and revegetation of suitable habitat near the

Project to minimise the potential for indirect impacts and inform the design of appropriate buffers between the habitat and the Project; and

● Develop a monitoring program to monitor impacts on the populations of threatened invertebrates and the effectiveness of mitigation measures and incorporate adaptive management actions where impacts are noted.

4.4 Effectiveness of mitigation measures A summary of proposed threatened invertebrate-specific mitigation measures, and an evaluation of their effectiveness based on past experience with other highway upgrades is described in Table 4-1.

4.5 Adaptive management approach This plan includes an adaptive management approach based on firstly identifying specific goals for management, followed by the implementation of management actions, and finally the monitoring of the performance of these measures against the goals and identified thresholds. Prescribed corrective actions will be applied to improve mitigation where required.

To ensure the success of this approach the management goals presented in the plan were based on the following SMART principles:

• Specific. • Measurable. • Achievable. • Results-based. • Time-based.



Table 4-1 Mitigation measures and evaluation of their effectiveness Issue Mitigation measure History of success Effectiveness rating

The host plant and threatened invertebrates are difficult to detect and host plants may be accidentally removed during clearing.

Installation of temporary fencing to exclude construction activities from known threatened invertebrate habitat areas identified through pre-construction targeted surveys.

Temporary exclusion fencing used in association with all Pacific Highway upgrade over the last 10 years. High

Pre-clearing and clearing procedures. A standard procedure has been developed by Roads and Maritime and documented in the Biodiversity Guidelines for Construction (RTA 2011). The guidelines were developed in consultation with the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) (Fisheries), biodiversity specialists and Roads and Maritime staff including project managers, construction personnel and designers. Consultation was facilitated through a number of workshops carried out in 2009. These procedures have been developed using knowledge gained from a long history of upgrades on the Pacific Highway and other road projects in NSW.

High

Translocation of Southern Pink Underwing Moth if any are encountered on each day prior to any clearing in areas of potential habitat. This will be undertaken by suitably qualified and licenced fauna spotters.

A species profile is provided in Appendix C.

The New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service has a Policy for the Translocation of Threatened Fauna in New South Wales (NPWS 2001), which applies to all fauna, including invertebrates. Roads and Maritime has previously funded studies into the translocation of threatened invertebrates (e.g. Translocation of threatened species and rehabilitation of key habitat (Purple Copper Butterfly – Paralucia spinifera).

Unknown; monitor development of immature stages for three weeks following translocation.

Translocation of Southern Pink Underwing Moth and/or Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle larvae or pupae from the construction area to a safe place.

The New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service has a Policy for the Translocation of Threatened Fauna in New South Wales (NPWS 2001), which applies to all fauna, including invertebrates. Roads and Maritime has previously funded studies into the translocation of threatened invertebrates (e.g. Translocation of threatened species and rehabilitation of key habitat (Purple Copper Butterfly – Paralucia spinifera)).

Unknown; monitor development of immature stages for three weeks following translocation.

Impact to threatened invertebrate habitat outside the construction zone.

Identification of exclusion zones and limits of clearing.

Identification of exclusions zones and limits of clearing has for a number of Roads and Maritime Pacific Highway projects managed the removal of vegetation within designated areas and avoided unnecessary vegetation removal. Exclusions zones are generally marked on plans, outlined in inductions and pegged out on site.

High



Issue Mitigation measure History of success Effectiveness rating

Prioritising the revegetation of Lowland Rainforest areas, key habitat for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth and Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle.

Protecting or rehabilitating breeding and foraging habitat is widely regarded as one of the most fundamental methods of protecting threatened uspecies.

High; Monitor the reestablishment of Southern Pink Underwing Moth Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle into rehabilitated habitat.

Movement disruption and or disorientation of threatened invertebrates due to use of artificial lighting.

Set minimum distances of 500 m where practicable between known habitat and artificial lighting, minimise use of artificial lighting; use lamps with low attractiveness; use lighting shields to block bright lights at interchanges where lighting is required to address road safety requirements.

A rigorous and detailed study of the attractiveness of different artificial light sources to insects was completed by Eisenbeis and Hassel (2000). Information from this study has been used to inform the choice of lamps in design considerations for the Project.

Moderate; monitor effectiveness.

Increased incursion of invasive weeds. This can decrease habitat quality for invertebrates and be a threat to the host plant.

Weed management procedures documented in the Roads and Maritime Biodiversity Guidelines, specifications and preferred infrastructure report are to be implemented to control weeds across the project area.

Weed management will be described in the CEMP and Flora and Fauna Management Plan (FFMP).

Monitoring of weeds in rainforest communities will be undertaken to identify any weed outbreaks and also assess the effectiveness of weed management.

Roads and Maritime has developed standard weed management procedures that are documented in the Biodiversity Guidelines (RTA 2011). These measures are implemented during construction and are reported as part of the FFMP process. This includes pre-clearing surveys to identify weeds and noxious species and map their location for on-going monitoring and control during construction. Weed monitoring during construction is a routine procedure for road upgrades with a long history of success in NSW.

Roads and Maritime have developed standard procedures for weeds on construction sites as part of the CEMP process with a long history of success as reported in auditing reports.

High

Dust and noise impacting on habitat use.

Dust and noise managed in accordance with procedures in the CEMP. Monitoring of dust on plants considered as part of plant health monitoring. Dust deposition is to be monitored monthly.

Roads and Maritime have developed standard procedures for managing dust and noise on construction sites as part of the CEMP process with a long history of success as reported in auditing reports.

High



Issue Mitigation measure History of success Effectiveness rating Vegetation communities and habitats impacted by changes to the water quality within and immediately adjacent to the project.

Water quality managed in accordance with procedures in the CEMP.

Roads and Maritime has successfully used water quality controls across a number of Pacific Highway projects. Procedures for water quality management on construction sites have been developed in accordance with the Blue Book principles and form part of the CEMP process.

W2B Water Quality Management Program and Water Quality Monitoring Program will also outline how water quality and hydrology will be managed on site during construction and operation.

High



5. Pre-construction management measures

5.1 Potential impacts during pre-construction phase There is an opportunity to protect habitat for threatened invertebrate species proximate to construction areas through implementation of pre-construction management measures. There is potential for accidental impact to invertebrate habitat when locating ancillary facility sites, including heavy vehicle access as part of pre-construction planning.

5.2 Management objectives The objectives of the management strategy include:

● Map the distribution and abundance of threatened invertebrate populations and identify suitable locations (outside of the road reserve) for habitat rehabilitation

● No impact to threatened invertebrate habitat outside of the Project including designated work areas for ancillary facilities within Section 10 and 11 during the pre-construction planning phase

● Should host plants be identified within the Project boundary and impacts are unavoidable, trial a host plant propagation strategy

● Identify exclusions zones prior to construction commencing including corridor and ancillary sites and access roads; and

● Weed management plan developed and approved prior to construction commencing.

5.3 Management measures

5.3.1 Targeted baseline and pre-construction surveys Baseline targeted survey and pre-construction surveys for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth and Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle have been completed for the Project (BAAM 2013, BAAM 2014) by licensed and appropriately qualified ecologists. Details are provided in Section 3.

The objectives of the baseline targeted threatened invertebrate surveys were to:

● Accurately identify and quantify individual host plants in habitat areas adjacent to the impact areas and/or Project so that these may be used to collect propagules for later planting

● Identify locations where threatened invertebrates have been encountered in or within 20 m of the Project

● Identify habitat features suitable for Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle within the Project that will be removed to adjacent habitat

● Identify suitable sites for relocation of adult beetles and moth larvae / pupae (if required) ● Clearly identify and map habitat edges as far as possible, to enable avoidance and / or

implementation of edge protection; and ● Mark each individual host plant to be retained within 20 m of the Project in the field using flagging

tape, survey pegs and a GPS location.

The aim of the targeted surveys was to identify the location of threatened invertebrate populations for each upgrade section, and identify and map known and potential habitat for each species. A subset of known locations was selected for ongoing population monitoring whilst some adjacent areas also known to contain the target species were selected as control sites. The details of the monitoring program are provided in Section 8, and the following information details the timing, methods and parameters for the targeted surveys which are intended to be repeated as part of the post-construction monitoring program.



Targeted threatened invertebrate surveys have recorded the current condition of threatened invertebrate habitat that will remain in the vicinity of the Project. Such data (coupled with historical survey records) forms the baseline for the monitoring program and informs the habitat structure and plant species diversity at known sites as a benchmark for the development of revegetation or offset sites. For retained habitat patches, establishment of photographic reference points of edge zone condition and evidence of host plant recruitment events was conducted.

The results of baseline and pre-construction surveys have informed the construction mitigation measures for protecting local populations of host plants and invertebrates in-situ, where applicable. These measures are detailed in Section 6.

It should be noted an additional pre-clearance field inspection will be undertaken by an experienced ecologist to ensure that no host plants fall within the clearing limits once it has been accurately defined and marked in the field with survey pegs. This survey is also described in Section 6.3.4.

5.3.2 Locating of ancillary facilities outside of known habitat for threatened Invertebrates

Ancillary areas including stockpiles and construction infrastructure (i.e. batch plants, compound sites) will be sited within cleared areas at appropriate distances to water bodies and potential threatened invertebrate habitats. This will occur across all ancillary sites for each stage of the project and will be documented in the CEMP.

5.3.3 Temporary exclusion zones An exclusion zone would be a designated “no go” area that clearly identifies areas to avoid and would be appropriately fenced to prevent damage to habitat for threatened invertebrates and host plants. Exclusion zones can also be used to define clearing limits. The location and type of exclusion fencing to be used will be included in the CEMP. Further detail on exclusion zone establishment and maintenance can be found in the Biodiversity Guidelines Protecting and managing biodiversity on RTA projects (RTA 2011).

Exclusion fencing will be established prior to clearing in proximity to known threatened invertebrate habitat to ensure protection of vegetation immediately adjacent to the Project. Additional high visibility fencing may be required in proximity to ancillary areas (laydown, construction tracks, car parks, works sites, etc.).

The relevant protocols for exclusion zones include:

• Toolbox talks and induction training on the purpose of exclusion fencing and protocols to be followed in working in close proximity to exclusion zones/fencing.

• Exclusion zones to be identified and marked out prior to clearing works considering threatened invertebrate habitats and lowland rainforest communities mapped by the targeted surveys

• Exclusion zone fencing would be placed outside the tree protection zone (drip zone) and in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites

• Appropriate signage would be erected to inform personnel about the purpose for the fencing • Signage needs to be clearly visible from a distance of 20 metres and be consistent in wording i.e.

Exclusion Zone or Environmental Protection Zone • All construction materials or equipment outside the exclusion zone should be stored in accordance

with Australian Standard AS 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites i.e. outside of the tree drip line

• All exclusion zones would be marked on a site plan used for construction with an aerial image underlay

• Indicate on the site plan construction stations or distance markers where the exclusion zones would be located; and

• Exclusion zones would be clearly labelled on the site plan, including the type of fencing to be used and installation and maintenance requirements.



The type of temporary fencing used may vary depending on the number of plants being protected, specific species requirements and the sensitivity of the site. Fencing options may include (but are not limited to) the following:

• Highly sensitive sites – chain wire fencing or Jersey barriers (where appropriate) • Permanent protection required – stock fencing or similar • Temporary fencing of specific small areas – Para-web material and star pickets • Larger areas – capped star pickets and reflective spinning tape (helicopter tape); and • Delineation of low risk intrusion areas – earth bunding, mulch berms, sediment fencing or flagging

tape. Induction material to be presented to construction staff would detail the importance of EPBC/TSC listed species and communities and their management requirements, clearly identifying avoidance requirements before commencing work at each location.

5.3.4 Host plant propagation trial strategy After the pre-clearance field inspection is completed, should any host plants be found within the construction footprint and/or clearing limits, Roads and Maritime will investigate the potential to take vegetative material and propagate additional host plants from these specimens. This will be to supplement areas of revegetation within the Project boundary or offset sites for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth.

Collection of seeds is considered to be an impractical option for the host plant of Southern Pink Underwing Moth, as the seeds of Carronia multisepalea tend to form quite high in the canopy, making them difficult to source. Instead, propagation from cuttings will be trialled as a priority measure. The collection of plant propagation material will be undertaken by an experienced ecologist/ horticulturalist.

There is no documented evidence to suggest that successful propagation of Carronia multisepalea has been undertaken previously. Therefore, a trial program would provide best practice procedures for cutting collection and propagation of Carronia multisepalea and provide baseline information into the usefulness of propagation in the rehabilitation of rainforest, including habitat for Southern Pink Underwing Moth. The propagation trial should commence early to establish whether propagation from cuttings is a viable translocation method. The outcomes of the trial would inform the development of the biodiversity offset strategy for Sections 10 and 11.

Plants propagated by cutting will be transplanted in areas of rainforest rehabilitation (within the project area but outside of the clearing footprint) to increase the value of these areas as habitat for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth. A guide to rainforest species cutting collection and propogation is provided in Section 6.3.4 of the TRCRPMP.

Although Carronia multisepalea is not considered to be a threatened species under the EPBC Act or TSC Act, the propagation of this species should consider the methodology outlined within the TRCRPMP. Specific actions relevant to Carronia multisepalea are provided in Section 5.3.5 below. Propogation and planting will also be outlined in the Translocation Strategy to be prepared by Roads and Maritime to address the requirements of MCoA D7 for Sections 3-11.

5.3.5 Propagation from cuttings The below actions will be undertaken if the host plant, Carronia multisepalea, is identified during pre-clearance surveys being within the Project boundary and the plant will be directly impacted during construction.

The objective of propagating Carronia multisepalea from cuttings is to provide a source of new host plants for the revegetation program and to maintain the current genetic diversity and resilience of the host plant and Southern Pink Underwing Moth populations in the vicinity of the project. The propagule collection program will be initiated at the earliest possible opportunity prior to clearing activities. Cutting collection will be limited to no more than two cuttings per adult plant to maximise the chance of maintaining genetic diversity.



Collection, storage and propagation of cuttings would be undertaken in accordance with the methods outlined in the TRCRPMP. The areas of the population restricted to the western side of the project are considered an appropriate source for cutting collection.

The cutting collection and propagation activities will aim to match the density of vines present in areas of habitat where the moth is known to occur (i.e. a minimum of 10 plants per hectare).

As per Section 5.3.4 above, an experimental trial will be undertaken with half of the plants grown from cuttings placed in commercial potting mix, and the remainder in a mix containing only the natural soil type from the site. Transplanting to the natural soil type would be carried out when vine propagules reach 15-30 centimetres long. The trial would aim to examine the effect of the potting medium on growth and establishment of plants in the field. As the host species typically grows in nutrient-rich soils derived from basalt, all propagules would be planted with a slow release fertiliser to improve chances of establishment.

The above experimental trial treatments would provide useful information for future management and mitigation of the vines with regards to the effect of nursery soil medium and establishment of propagated plants introduced to the wild; a factor that remains poorly understood.

Although propagation methods undertaken will be reflective of the TRCRPMP, specific details with reference to propagule collection, storage and propagation for Carronia multisepalea are not specified within the TRCRPMP as this species is not a threatened species. It is recommended that propagule collection, storage and propagation follow Greening Australia guidelines. These are located online on the Greening Australia website (http://www.greeningaustralia.org.au/uploads//Our Solutions – Toolkit pdfs/NT_8_Undertake_Propagation_Web.pdf). The basic methods for collection, propagation and storage of cut plant material is summarised within Table 5-1.

Table 5-1 Cutting collection, storage and propagation methods Process Method

Cutting collection Cuttings should be collected from as many parent plants as possible. Cuttings would be collected early in the day, when conditions are cool and moist. Take cuttings from the upper part of healthy plants, growing in shrub form (rather than vine form),

from relatively new growth formed in the current or immediately past season. Single cuttings would be 8-12 cm in length and the cut should be performed just below the node,

avoiding material with flower buds. Cuttings would be from the end of the stem, with the option for a longer cutting to be broken into two

separate cuttings if necessary. Cuttings would preferentially be taken from plants that show signs of moth larval feeding activity;

however cuttings would not be taken from branches where moth eggs are present Plants would be checked for moth larvae and eggs prior to taking each cutting and any sections of

plant with larvae or eggs would be avoided.

Cutting storage The basic requirements for good storage are to ensure the following: Leaves would be removed from the bottom of the cutting. Remaining leaves would be cut in half to reduce water loss. Cuttings would be stored in water, or wrapped in wet paper or a plastic bag, in a cool place. Accurate record keeping would be implemented including collection data, a unique plant number and

the associated GPS location of the source plant.

Cutting propagation Most of the propagules would be planted out in the field when they reach 30 cm in length. If landscaping activities become delayed some plants would be potted into larger pots and grown further.

5.3.6 Weed Management Weeds are plants that may threaten agricultural land adjacent to the project, have detrimental effects on the natural environment or impact human health. The objective of weed management is to prevent or minimise the spread of noxious and environmental weeds on Roads and Maritime project sites. Guide 6: Weed management of the Biodiversity Guidelines: protecting and managing biodiversity on RTA project (RTA 2011) provides the requirements for weed management on all Roads and Maritime projects. The Introductory Weed Management Manual (Natural Heritage Trust 2004) also provides guidance for developing weed management plans.

http://www.greeningaustralia.org.au/uploads/Our%20Solutions%20–%20Toolkit%20pdfs/NT_8_Undertake_Propagation_Web.pdf

http://www.greeningaustralia.org.au/uploads/Our%20Solutions%20–%20Toolkit%20pdfs/NT_8_Undertake_Propagation_Web.pdf



In summary, Guide 6 requires a site weed assessment to be undertaken prior to construction for each staged section of the project. Data collected during the assessment would be used to develop a weed management plan, which would include details on the weed monitoring. Appropriately qualified persons will complete the weed surveys prior to construction to identify weed species, their location and density.

A project specific Weed Management Plan will be developed and will be incorporated into relevant plans for the project (e.g. CEMP, FFMP or work method statements). This will form the baseline for all weed management activities within the project area.

In general, weed management plans include descriptions and mapping of major weed infestations identified during pre-clearing surveys, with appropriate management actions outlined to be implemented for each infestation. The following information is included in these plans: • Type and source of the weed/s • Weed management priorities and objectives • Sensitive environmental areas within or adjacent to the site, including threatened plant species

populations and any different weed management actions and control methods to be adopted • Location of weed infested areas • Mechanical weed control methods such as slashing or mowing, as well as a range of herbicides to

avoid the development of herbicide resistance • Measures to prevent the spread of weeds • Appropriate placement of tub grinder mulch that avoids being spread around retained in situ

threatened flora sites • A monitoring program to measure the success of weed management; and • Communication strategies to improve contractor awareness of weeds and weed management.

Details on monitoring the performance of weed management, as well as corrective actions to be implemented in instances of change from performance measures, are provided in Section 8.

5.3.7 Mitigation goals and corrective actions Pre-construction mitigation goals for threatened invertebrates and associated corrective actions are summarised in Table 5-2.



Table 5-2 Mitigation goals, mitigation and performance measures and corrective actions –preconstruction Mitigation goals Proposed mitigation measure Monitoring/timing frequency Trigger for corrective actions Corrective actions Responsible party for

corrective action implementation

Protect threatened invertebrates and habitats.

Conduct targeted invertebrate baseline surveys and identify and map areas of known and potential habitat. Conduct pre-clearance surveys prior to clearing to confirm there are no host plants within the designated clearing limit. Identify areas for rehabilitation outside the road reserve.

Targeted baseline surveys have been completed. Known and potential habitat areas have been identified. Pre-clearing surveys must be completed prior to clearing in Sections 10 and 11. Areas for rehabilitation will be identified in the Urban Design and Landscape Plan (UDLP) prior to construction commencing for Sections 10 and 11.

Targeted invertebrate surveys have been completed. Pre-clearance surveys have not been completed prior to clearing commencing. UDLP has not been completed for relevant sections prior to construction.

Cease any work until pre-clearance surveys have been completed and results evaluated. Cease clearing until exclusion zones have been identified and marked on the ground. Don’t commence construction until UDLP is finalised for Section 10 and 11.

Project Contractor Project Ecologist

No impact to threatened invertebrate habitat outside of the project including designated work areas for ancillary facilities within Section 10 and 11 during the pre-construction planning phase.

Identification and marking including pre-clearance survey and demarcation of exclusion zones. Temporary exclusion fencing to be established prior to clearing in proximity to known threatened invertebrate habitat.

Identification of exclusion zones informed by targeted surveys and identified and approved by construction clearing limits prior to clearing works to mark and flag exclusion zones. Follow-up inspection after surveying road corridor.

Pre-clearance survey not completed prior to construction commencing. Inspection of clearing boundary reveals gaps or inappropriate placement of fencing. Exclusion zones have not been identified, established and approved prior to construction.

Delay construction until pre-clearance survey completed. Delay construction until exclusions zones have been identified, approved and established.

Project Contractor Project Ecologist Project Environmental Advisor

Protection of host plants within the clearing footprint

If pre-clearance survey identifies host plants within the clearing footprint implement the trial propagation strategy. May include cuttings and seed propagation. Incorporate host plant into Flora Translocation Strategy for Sections 10 and 11.

Pre-construction – Confirm results of pre-clearance survey prior to any clearing or construction activities commencing.

Propagation trial is not successful, i.e. does not result in propagation of host plant.

Re-trial using different method and techniques using remaining plant material collected. Investigate potential to collect host plant material from populations adjacent to the Project boundary. Refer to Flora Translocation Strategy for further details and methods.

Project Contractor Project Ecologist Project Environmental Advisor



Mitigation goals Proposed mitigation measure Monitoring/timing frequency Trigger for corrective actions Corrective actions Responsible party for corrective action implementation

Minimise the threat weeds pose to threatened invertebrates within the Project footprint.

Develop a weed management plan to provide detail on weed extent, location of high threat weeds and weed infestation within dissected rainforest areas. Plan also to provide details on potential pathogens and management measures to be implemented.

Weed management plan to be completed prior to construction commencing as part of the Flora & Fauna Management Plan under MCoAD26 (e).

Weed Management Plan not completed prior to construction commencing.

Delay construction if the weed and pathogen management plan has not been completed prior to construction.

Project Contractor Project Environmental Advisor



6. Construction management measures 6.1 Potential impacts during construction • Impacts during clearing of vegetation ● Machinery moving around rainforest communities and threatened invertebrate habitat has the

potential to cause direct and indirect damage to these plants directly by allowing materials to fall on them or compacting soil and roots and changing water infiltration in these areas, introducing and/or spreading weeds, contaminating the soil and/or water and generating dust that could coat plants

• Disturbance and degradation of adjacent known invertebrate habitat • Movement disruption and or disorientation of threatened invertebrates due to the use of artificial

lighting • Dust and noise impacting on invertebrates and habitats • Increased incursion of invasive weeds due to edge effects; and • Potential in-breeding depression due to fragmentation of habitats.

6.2 Mitigation goals • No direct impact or indirect impact to known threatened invertebrate habitat or host plants outside

of the Project during construction • No displacement of threatened invertebrates due to artificial lighting during the construction phase • Dust managed in accordance with the CEMP which will aim to:

o Facilitate the identification of dust sources o Identify dust suppression measures to be implemented, including:

Use of water carts on unsealed surfaces and stockpiles Cover loads on all trucks on public roads Minimise tracked mud/dust on public roads Modify or cease operations during high winds Stabilise, revegetate and/or landscape all disturbed areas as soon as practicable Prohibit burning or incineration of any material at any time

o Inform dust monitoring and the use of dust deposition gauges at sensitive locations o Monitor complaints associated with dust generation o Facilitate training of personnel on air quality issues and safeguards; and o Vehicles, equipment, machinery used and all facilities – designed, operated and

maintained to control the emission of smoke, dust and fumes. • Noise managed in accordance with the CEMP to minimise impacts on invertebrates • Water quality and soil quality managed in accordance with the CEMP which will aim to:

o Inform the preparation of site specific erosion and sediment control plans and measures to be implemented, including:

Silt fences Sand bags Mulch materials and straw bales Sedimentation basins Clean water diversion berms

• Weeds managed in accordance with the CEMP to minimise impacts on invertebrates; and • Rehabilitation of known threatened invertebrate habitat areas adjacent to the project (outside of

the road reserve) to be commenced during the construction phase.




6.3.1 Work method statements Work method statements would be prepared for specific activities that pose particular environmental risks. Work method statements would ensure sound environmental practices are implemented to minimise the risk of environmental incidents or system failures, in accordance with the CEMP.

Work method statements covering activities with the potential to impact on threatened invertebrates would address all relevant management measures and be prepared in consultation with agencies, Roads and Maritime and the relevant project environmental staff prior to the commencement of identified activities.

6.3.2 Induction and training Induction and training would be conducted with all contractors and other staff that would be working in the areas of known and potential threatened invertebrate habitat. This training would identify threatened invertebrate habitat and key threats, with all personnel shown pictures of the species. The importance of following the clearing, and rehabilitation protocols would be made clear for any personnel that require access to the site. Species profiles are included in Appendix C.

6.3.3 Temporary exclusion fencing Exclusion fencing (high visibility) would be established prior to clearing in proximity to known threatened invertebrate habitat to ensure protection of vegetation immediately adjacent to the project.

Any host plants identified within 20 m of the Project would be marked by GPS and flagged with high visibility fencing/tape and ‘no-go’ signage to ensure that their location has been identified and understood by construction contractors and that the plants are not disturbed. The retention of flagged host plants would be checked on the day following clearing.

6.3.4 Clearing requirements The Roads and Maritime Biodiversity Guideline (2011) outlines the standard clearing protocol that would be followed. The clearing area would be minimised and vegetation protection/no go areas would be established.

An ecologist would check potential foraging habitat for Southern Pink Underwing Moth within the Project on each day prior to commencement of any clearing activity to ensure that no host plants or individuals of the moth fall within the clearing zone. This survey, immediately before clearing commences, would be aimed at reducing the risk of mortality of threatened invertebrates during clearing activities. Host plants will be marked during this survey if found within 20 m of the Project for in-field identification and sensitive area planning, this ensures consistency with the requirements for marking plants for retention as per the Threatened Flora Management Plan. If any host vines (Carronia multisepalea) are found within the clearing footprint then the number to be removed and their percentage of the overall food plants in the area will be recorded.

It will also be investigated the potential to collect propogative material from these host plants as described in Section 5.3.4 of this TIMP.

No host plants of Southern Pink Underwing Moth have been identified within the proposed clearing footprint during surveys undertaken to date, so it is not be expected that the moth or its host plant would be encountered during clearing. However, if a case arises where individuals of the Southern Pink Underwing Moth are found, they would be relocated by an ecologist to areas of suitable habitat more than 100 m outside of the Project boundary.



Larvae, eggs or pupae in particular would be relocated to another host plant vine (Carronia multisepalea) in each case with a preference for a plant positioned under the protection of the rainforest canopy that has ample foliage and at least some evidence of host use by the moth (e.g. recent feeding activity; or 1–2 larvae already present). The development of any relocated immature stages would be monitored for three weeks following translocation. All host plants, Southern Pink Underwing Moths and larvae identified within the clearing footprint will be accurately recorded.

A copy of the species profile in Appendix C will be provided to the ecologist to assist with searches and identification of the host plant and the moth. The responsible ecologist on site must have a current NSW scientific licence (‘permits to collect’) to undertake these surveys and relocate threatened insects.

During these surveys the presence of Pararistolochia praevenosa (the host vine species for the locally significant Richmond Birdwing) will also be noted. Although this species is not considered to be threatened under the TSC Act or EPBC Act, impacts to and mitigation measures undertaken for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth may also affect this species respectfully given their host species occur in similar habitats including those potentially impacted by the project. Positive rehabilitation and mitigations measures undertaken as part of the project would likely benefit the Richmond Birdwing should they be successful for the target threatened invertebrates.

6.3.5 Artificial lighting during construction and installation of street lighting Potential impacts from artificial lighting on the moth are considered unlikely (Dr Sands pers. comm.). No disturbance to Southern (and northern ssp.) Pink Underwing Moth behaviour (flight, feeding and avoidance) has been seen (using night vision glasses) at localities in Queensland when lights are 500 m or further from habitat (Dr Sands pers. comm.). It is not possible to predict how longer-term exposure to lights will influence moth behaviour without experiments or observations. Sometimes insects will ‘condition’ themselves to light disturbance.

During construction there may be a need for lighting should night works be required.

The road corridor will be largely unlit; however, some areas of lighting would be installed in association with interchange roundabouts and merge and diverge traffic lanes. Where lighting cannot be avoided within 500 m of known and potential habitat for threatened invertebrates, precautionary mitigation measures will be employed. In cases where lighting is essential (such as interchange roundabouts and merge and diverge traffic lanes), the project will consider the use of non-standard forms of lighting to minimise attraction and displacement of adult Southern Pink Underwing Moth, as well as potential disorientation of Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle. Roads and Maritime is investigating the potential to use high pressure sodium lights wherever the Project falls within 500 m of known or potential breeding habitat for Southern Pink Underwing Moth. These types of lamp are widely used in street lighting and have been demonstrated to attract significantly fewer insects than other viable options, such as metal halide lamps (Eisenbeis, G. and F. Hassel 2000). Lighting will be investigated for those areas of the road corridor between chainage 154900 to 158000 due to proximity of breeding habitat and records of the host plant.

The following specific mitigation measures will apply to the project:

● Lights and their wattage to be minimised ● Physical barriers to horizontal light spill to be installed ● Lights mounted as low as possible, and limited where possible to road & signage illumination ● Avoid mercury vapour lights; sodium vapour will be investigated where the lighting is needed for

safety purposes in proximity to known and potential breeding habitat for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth; and

● Avoid penetration by lights into forest or water courses to avoid disruption of flight behaviour, flight paths, host and mate-finding by the moths.



6.3.6 Minimising dust and noise Dust impacts would be managed in accordance with the CEMP which will aim to:

o Facilitate the identification of dust sources

o Identify dust suppression measures to be implemented, including:

Use of water carts on unsealed surfaces and stockpiles

Cover loads on all trucks on public roads

Minimise tracked mud/dust on public roads

Modify or cease operations during high winds

Stabilise, revegetate and/or landscape all disturbed areas as soon as practicable

Prohibit burning or incineration of any material at any time.

o Inform dust monitoring and the use of dust deposition gauges at sensitive locations, such as within confirmed breeding habitats for threatened invertebrates

o Monitor complaints associated with dust generation

o Facilitate training of personnel on air quality issues and safeguards; and

o Vehicles, equipment, machinery used and all facilities – designed, operated and maintained to control the emission of smoke, dust and fumes.

Corrective measures would be adopted where a significant impact is noted and may include the addition of shade cloth screening installed around rainforest plants and host plants to provide dust protection and maintain microclimate. The presence of dust on threatened plants would be monitored as part of the plant health monitoring as outlined in Section 8.

The monitoring program in Section 8 aims to monitor the impacts of dust on rainforest communities near the Project and in particular impacts on the host plant Carronia multisepalea where this species occurs in edge areas.

6.3.7 Revegetation and habitat improvement procedures Given the limited distribution of remaining known or potential (rainforest) habitat for Southern Pink Underwing Moth and Rainforest Atlas Ground Beetle within the NSW North Coast, management measures would encompass a mix of improved management of existing rainforest patches and the establishment of new areas of rainforest with the aim of recreating habitat suitable for the moth and the beetle, and minimise the overall impact of edge effects on the remaining rainforest patches.

Revegetation for the moth will be focused towards management of its host plant and also retention or establishment of rainforest food trees that are recognised to provide suitable resources for the adult moth. These include Ficus spp., Waterhousea spp. and Syzygium spp. (Sands 2012). Revegetation would also look to incorporate the host vine Pararistolochia praevenosa (the host vine species for the locally significant Richmond Birdwing) known to occur in the area.

Habitat improvement for the beetle would include the provision of microhabitat features such as; plant roots (via revegetation), large rocks and logs (Monteith and Turco n. d.). Revegetation would include large-buttressed local plant species such as Ficus spp., Elaeocarpus spp., Sloanea spp. and Melia azedarach, which would provide habitat for the beetle. Other important features including rocks and logs would be sourced from within the project as per Roads and Maritime biodiversity guidelines (2011). These would be placed on basaltic soil on sloping terrain to provide shelter and the best opportunity for beetle colonisation.

The exact location(s) of revegetation in the project footprint will be provided in the UDLP.



6.3.8 Weed Management Weed management will be undertaken during construction according to the weed management plan and CEMP. This plan would follow the Roads and Maritime Biodiversity Guidelines requirements (RTA 2011). This plan would focus on weeds and pathogens identified in the recovery plan relevant to the section where works are being undertaken, particularly Camphor Laurel, which is invasive in the habitat occupied by both threatened invertebrates.

Weed management measures during construction will include:

● Communication strategies to improve contractor awareness of weeds and weed management ● Ensure all contractors have been made aware locations of threatened invertebrate habitat and

exclusion zones ● Measures to prevent the spread of weeds such as topsoil management, vehicle wash downs and

restricting vehicles to designated tracks and trails ● Appropriate disposal of weed infested materials and soils ● Identification of environmentally sensitive areas and weed zones where specific weed measures

are required ● Targeting those weeds that are of the highest environmental or agricultural threat and risk of

spreading for control; and ● Monitoring the effectiveness of weed control.

6.3.9 Hydrology and water quality To manage potential impacts associated with water quality, erosion and sediment; management considerations have been incorporated into the project design and will be detailed in the CEMP. These designs have taken into account the guidelines, principles and design standards as defined in Managing urban stormwater: soils and construction volume 1 (Landcom, 2004), and Managing urban stormwater: soils and construction – main road construction (DECC, 2008). These documents describe Roads and Maritime’s commitments to how soils and water quality are to be managed during road construction, and during the ongoing operation of the NSW state road network, so as to prevent environmental pollution.

The key surface water quality objective of the project is to protect downstream environments from the potential impacts of surface runoff during the construction and operational phases of the project (RMS, Aurecon, SKM, 2012c:58). Similarly, the key groundwater objectives of the project are to protect environmental receivers of groundwater flows, and groundwater users from the potential impacts on groundwater levels and quality during the construction and operational phases of the project (RMS, Aurecon, SKM, 2012d:10).

The Water Quality Management Program (WQMP) will play a crucial role in ensuring construction and operation of the project does not have a negative impact on sensitive receiving environments including but not limited to threatened invertebrates species habitat.

The project has the potential to change the hydrological functioning of the adjacent habitat, which may have impacts on the populations of threatened invertebrates in the Project area, including:

● Exposure of soils during earthworks (including stripping of topsoil, excavation, stockpiling and materials transport), which may result in soil erosion and off-site movement of eroded sediments by wind and/or stormwater to receiving waterways, resulting in increased nutrients, metals and other pollutants

● Accidental leaks or spills of chemicals fuels oils and/or greases from construction plant and machinery, which may result in pollution of receiving waterways

● Exposure of acid sulfate soils (as a result of earthworks or dewatering), which may result in generation of sulfuric acid and subsequent acidification of waterways and mobilisation of heavy metals in the environment



● Disturbance of contaminated land causing contamination of downstream waterways impacting on aquatic and riparian habitats

● Removal of riparian vegetation which may result in soil and stream bank erosion and increased sediment loads in nearby creeks

● Direct disturbance of waterway beds and banks during culvert and bridge construction and temporary or permanent creek diversions which may lead to high volumes of sediment entering and polluting the waterways

● Changes to flow regimes, which can change the volumes and flow rates of water, leading to stagnation of a waterway and changes in turbidity, nitrogen and phosphorus levels

● Reduction in flow regimes also has the potential to expose potential acid sulfate soils if it results in a reduction to groundwater levels; and

● Leaching of tannins from stockpiles of cleared vegetation, which may have a number of adverse effects on receiving waters, including: o Increased biological oxygen demand, with consequent decreases in dissolved oxygen o Reduced water clarity and light penetration o Decreased pH.

Procedures including sediment and erosion control measures will be implemented to maintain water quality during construction, which will be included in the CEMP. These measures are important in maintaining the current condition of habitat for threatened invertebrates and to ensure water supplies have not been contaminated as a result of construction.

The key mitigation measures during construction will be sediment basins and additional erosion and sediment controls to intercept run-off and retain the associated sediments and pollutants. Maintenance and monitoring of these measures by the Contractor will form a key component of the mitigation measures as per Section 8 of the WQMP.

During operation, permanent water quality management and protection measures will be installed to protect adjacent waterways from pollutants generated by the project. These will include:

● Water quality ponds; and ● Grassed swales

In the event that adverse impacts are identified from the monitoring, the following procedure should be implemented:

● Identify potential pollutant source based on the parameters that were exceeded (e.g. sediment for high TSS reading, or fuel spill / leak for high hydrocarbon reading); and

● Inspect and rectify water quality ponds and grassed swales in area where adverse impacts are identified. This would include inspection of water quality ponds to assess available water storage capacity, water quality, sediment build-up, structural integrity and debris levels.

Water quality monitoring, particularly following rainfall events, would identify if the hydrology and water quality has been adversely impacted by the project.

6.4 Mitigation goals and corrective actions The construction mitigation goals and mitigation measures for invertebrates and associated corrective actions are summarised in Table 6-1.



Table 6-1 Mitigation goals, mitigation and performance measures and corrective actions –construction Mitigation goals Proposed mitigation measure Monitoring/timing frequency Trigger for corrective

actions Corrective actions Responsible party for


No loss or damage to Lowland Rainforest and Threatened Invertebrate Habitat outside the clearing limits. Zero mortality of host plants outside the clearing limits. No direct impact to, or unnecessary fragmentation of, known threatened invertebrate habitat (that occurs outside of the project clearing footprint) within Section 10 and 11 during construction.

• Implementation of the Roads and Maritime clearing protocol. Clearing areas identified and approved within the clearing protocol.

• Exclusion zones fenced off prior to clearing, fencing checked regularly, faults rectified (Responsibility of Project Contractor).

• Additional high visibility fencing may be required in proximity to ancillary areas (laydown, construction tracks, car parks, works sites, etc).

• Induct all construction staff at the commencement of construction works. Induct new staff as appropriate.

• Implementation of weed management as described in the CEMP and FFMP.

• Up to date Sensitive Area Plans (SAPs).

• Any host plants adjacent to the project would be flagged and appropriately protected in an exclusion zone. Their retention in Section 10 would be confirmed on the day following clearing activity.

• Prior to clearing near known invertebrate habitat areas.

• Report results as per the CEMP requirements.

• Clearing areas identified and approved prior to clearing activities being undertaken.

• Exclusion zone fencing monitored at least monthly, faults rectified as soon as noticed.

• Annual monitoring surveys for threatened invertebrates would be conducted during the construction period. Surveys will consist of one survey night per month between November and March. Surveys will monitor invertebrate species numbers and habitat condition at 5 monitoring transects and 2 control sites.

Clearing commenced prior to clearing areas being marked out and approved. Clearing commenced prior to exclusion barriers being erected. Evidence of direct impact to known invertebrate habitat or host plants outside of the Project. Breaches of exclusion zone fencing.

Delay construction until clearing areas have been marked out.

Incident investigation to identify cause and appropriate mitigation measures to avoid no further removal of host plants or harm to threatened invertebrates outside the Project.

Stop construction in the area of the fencing breach until exclusion fencing has been repaired. Investigate why breach in fencing occurred and implement corrective actions as required to prevent reoccurrence.

Supplementary revegetation of disturbed habitat and monitor recovery for period of 12 months.

Dust impacts would be managed in accordance with the CEMP including dust suppression measures. Corrective measures would be adopted where a significant impact is noted. The presence of dust on threatened rainforest communities and rainforest plant populations would be monitored as part of the plant health monitoring as outlined in Section 8.

If dust is determined to be having an impact on Lowland Rainforest vegetation or host plants corrective actions may be installing shade cloth screening

Project Contractor

Project Ecologist

Project Environmental Advisor



Mitigation goals Proposed mitigation measure Monitoring/timing frequency Trigger for corrective actions

Corrective actions Responsible party for corrective action implementation

along the cleared edge of threatened invertebrate habitat or around a particular plant for the duration of construction activities that are creating dust to provide microclimate protection (to prevent potential dieback form over sun exposure, dust, edge effects).

No direct impact to known threatened invertebrates or host plants during clearing of vegetation in Section 10.

• Documented procedure for clearing of vegetation.

• Ecologist to check areas to be cleared for threatened invertebrates and host plants each day prior to clearing.

• If invertebrates are found in clearing footprint they will be relocated at least 100m from clearing in suitable habitat. For the Southern Pink Underwing Moth this will include habitat areas that contain the host plant.

• Threatened invertebrate incident reporting to be maintained on a monthly basis as per FFMP.

• Annual monitoring surveys would be conducted during the construction period and consist of one survey night per month between November and March. Survey will monitor invertebrate species numbers and habitat condition at 5 monitoring transects and 2 control sites.

Evidence of direct impact to threatened invertebrates or host plants.

Incident investigation to identify cause and appropriate mitigation measures to avoid no further removal of host plants or harm to threatened invertebrates. Any additional impacts to those approved will be offset and included in the W2B Offset Strategy.

Project Contractor

Project Ecologist Project Environmental Advisor

No displacement of threatened invertebrates due to artificial lighting during the construction phase.

• During construction, lighting within 500 m of known and potential invertebrate habitat would use high-pressure sodium or LED lamps, which have a low attractiveness for invertebrates.

• Monitoring during construction to ensure artificial lighting is minimised and appropriate lights are being used in areas adjacent to known and potential invertebrate habitat as illustrated in Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2.

Incorrect artificial lighting is being used by the contractor.

Ensure contractor is utilising high-pressure sodium or LED lamps, which have a low attractiveness for invertebrates in areas adjacent to threatened invertebrate habitat. Investigate other design features for lighting including lamp type, design of shields and potential implementation of filters and height of light.

Project Contractor





Dust and noise managed in accordance with the CEMP to minimise impacts on invertebrates and invertebrate habitat.

• Implement dust and noise management procedures as outlined in the CEMP.

• Monitoring of dust on plants considered as part of plant health monitoring.

• Measures to be implemented in response to weather and construction conditions/activities.

• Monthly reporting as part of CEMP including updates on the effectiveness of dust and noise control measures.

• Installation of dust gauges in representative areas adjacent to known and potential moth habitat.

• Annual monitoring of threatened invertebrate habitat condition and activity to commence at start of the construction phase.

Dust-related exceedances recorded from the dust monitoring within sections adjacent to Lowland Rainforest and invertebrate habitat. Noise exceedances from those specified in the CEMP.

Investigate potential causes and manage in accordance with the CEMP, including review of the dust and noise management measures. Corrective measures would be adopted where a significant impact from dust is noted.

If dust is determined to be having an impact on Lowland Rainforest vegetation or host plants corrective actions may be installing shade cloth screening along the cleared edge of threatened invertebrate habitat or around a particular plant for the duration of construction activities that are creating dust to provide microclimate protection (to prevent potential dieback form over sun exposure, dust, edge effects).

Project Contractor






No notable increase in the abundance of weeds within Lowland Rainforest patches and threatened invertebrate habitat.

Weed management plan contained within the FFMP and CEMP developed and implemented to control weeds. Monitoring surveys to include quantification of weed abundance and cover.

• Weed management plan to be completed prior to construction commencing as part of the Flora & Fauna Management Plan under MCoAD26 (e).

• Monthly reporting as part of CEMP including updates on the effectiveness of weed control measures.

• Annual monitoring of threatened invertebrate habitat condition and activity to commence at start of the construction phase.

In Lowland Rainforest community patches, weed cover must not increase by ≥30% from the baseline cover. This will be measured at each monitoring event*.

Inspections and monitoring indicate a decline in the condition score of any threatened invertebrate habitat polygons due to an increase in weeds (refer Section 8).

Review methods and objectives of weed management plan. Implement adaptive management measures. Evaluate the reasons for a decline in condition score. Implement additional management measures.

Project Contractor


The landscaping design includes details on revegetation requirements for areas adjacent to Lowland Rainforest and threatened invertebrate habitat areas. Rehabilitation to be commenced during the construction phase.

• Plantings in threatened invertebrate habitat (Section 10 and 11) to be undertaken as per the UDLP.

• Progressive revegetation as construction permits.

• Propagation trials to be undertaken for the host plant of Southern Pink Underwing Moth, should host plants be impacted by the Project.

• Propagation trial results as per reporting in the CEMP.

• Landscape design developed prior construction.

• Progress revegetation during construction, as areas become available.

• Construction and operational audits, with specific review of the landscape design.

No evidence of threatened invertebrate habitat revegetation captured in the landscape design, Offsets Strategy and/or audits. Threshold minimum propagation success - 20%

Update UDLP or Offsets Strategy to provide details on rehabilitation of lowland rainforest to enhance invertebrate habitats adjacent to the project or within offset sites.

RMS

Project Contractor


Water quality managed in accordance with the CEMP.

• Adequate water quality controls installed surrounding retained rainforest patches and threatened flora.

• Procedures for maintenance and monitoring of water quality controls included in the CEMP.

• Water quality controls would be monitored as a minimum weekly throughout the construction period and directly after storm events.

No significant breaches of water quality controls recorded. No loss of ecological condition recorded from the plant health monitoring particularly from altered water quality.

Review adequacy of the water quality controls and implement appropriate corrective actions. Review monitoring procedures for water quality controls and implement appropriate corrective actions.

Project Contractor




*Note: If performance threshold is not encountered during audit or monitoring, corrective action is taken. For example if weed cover was 10% and an increase of 30% occurred over a monitoring period (making the total cover 13%), this would trigger an evaluation of what was occurring and corrective action to be taken



7. Operational management measures 7.1 Potential impacts during operational phase ● Movement disruption and/or disorientation of threatened invertebrates due to the permanent

presence of artificial lighting outside of daylight hours ● Degradation of threatened invertebrate habitat revegetated areas; and ● Potential in-breeding depression due to fragmentation of habitats.

7.2 Mitigation goals ● No substantial reduction in activity of threatened invertebrates in Section 10 and 11 due to the

introduction of artificial lighting; ● No reduction in habitat quality from the baseline condition scores established by targeted surveys

prior to clearing; and ● To maintain and improve areas of threatened invertebrate habitat outside of the Project in Section

10 and 11 during operation.


7.3.1 Street lighting Potential impacts from artificial lighting on the moth are considered unlikely (Dr Sands pers. comm.). No disturbance to Southern (and northern ssp.) Pink Underwing Moth behaviour (flight, feeding and avoidance) has been seen (using night vision glasses) at localities in Queensland when lights are 500 m or further from habitat (Dr Sands pers. comm.). It is not possible to predict how longer-term exposure to lights will influence moth behaviour without experiments or observations. Sometimes insects will ‘condition’ themselves to light disturbance.

The road corridor will be largely unlit; however, some areas of lighting would be installed in association with interchange roundabouts and merge and diverge traffic lanes. Where lighting cannot be avoided within 500 m of known and potential habitat for threatened invertebrates, precautionary mitigation measures will be employed. In cases where lighting is essential (such as interchange roundabouts and merge and diverge traffic lanes), the project will consider the use of non-standard forms of lighting to minimise attraction and displacement of adult Southern Pink Underwing Moth, as well as potential disorientation of Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle.

Roads and Maritime is investigating the potential to use high pressure sodium lights wherever the Project falls within 500 m of known or potential breeding habitat for Southern Pink Underwing Moth. These types of lamp are widely used in street lighting and have been demonstrated to attract significantly fewer insects than other viable options, such as metal halide lamps (Eisenbeis, G. and F. Hassel 2000). Lighting will be investigated for those areas of the road corridor between chainage 154900 to 158000 due to proximity of breeding habitat and records of the host plant.

The following specific mitigation measures will apply to the project:

● Lights and their wattage to be minimised ● Physical barriers to horizontal light spill to be installed ● Lights mounted as low as possible, and limited where possible to road & signage illumination ● Avoid mercury vapour lights; sodium vapour will be investigated where the lighting is needed for

safety purposes in proximity to known and potential breeding habitat for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth; and

● Avoid penetration by lights into forest or water courses to avoid disruption of flight behaviour, flight paths, host and mate-finding by the moths.



7.3.2 Revegetation / landscaping The propagation trial would commence pre-construction and will trial propagation methods and soil medium. If successful, these proogated plats will be used during revegetation.

Revegetation would commence during construction and continue during operation in any areas within the road reserve adjacent to existing known or potential invertebrate habitats and host plants. It would be important that those areas near known and potential habitat are revegetated using locally collected plant propagules (within the extent of the former big scrub such as Davis Scrub Nature Reserve and Victoria Park Nature Reserve) and are revegetated with the aim of extending and enhancing the adjacent habitat as outlined within the TRCRPMP, W2B Offsets Strategy and UDLP where applicable.

The exact areas of revegetation and landscaping would be determined during the detailed design phase and outlined within the UDLP and Offsets Strategy. Areas for rehabilitation may include suitable areas within or outside the road reserve. Consultation with adjacent landowners will also be undertaken if opportunity to revegetate rainforest as an offset on private land exists. Where possible, access to rehabilitation areas will be managed by Roads and Maritime and the Contractor to ensure they are not degraded during planting or maintenance.

Inspection, monitoring and maintenance requirements for revegetation areas will commence from the date of revegetation and will be undertaken and consistent with the Roads and Maritime specifications including R178 and R179. The recommended monitoring and maintenance schedule for the revegetated areas in the first year is outlined in Table 7-1. Maintenance for years two and three is outlined in Table 7-2. An increased level of maintenance and monitoring will be completed in the first twelve month period and then tapers off as the revegetation becomes self-sustaining, but will be subject to performance measures being met.

Maintenance activities would include watering if necessary, removal of damaging debris after storms, plantings to replace mortalities, removal of bags and stakes (if used) when the plants overtop them, maintenance of mulch cover and weed control as necessary.

Table 7-1 Monitoring and maintenance schedule first year Monitoring Timing Maintenance

Site preparation Commencement Where weed infestations occur spray the area for weeds prior to planting using appropriate herbicides or pesticides and to the manufacturer’s specifications. The area is to be left for at least two weeks prior to planting.

Watering First month Immediately post planting undertake watering in accordance with Specification R179. Undertake watering at 2 day intervals for four weeks after planting.

Watering 2-6 months Watering will continue at weekly intervals gradually decreasing over time. The amount of watering will be in accordance with Specification R179.

Plant health Monthly for 12 months

Carry out maintenance inspections of plantings at intervals not exceeding one month. Weeds not smothering plants, plants healthy with active growth, replanting required if plant survival not at required percentage. A written report to be submitted to Roads and Maritime by contractor after each maintenance inspection.

Weed control Monthly Keep all planting areas free of weeds. Weed removal to be undertaken at intervals not more than four weeks and ensure weeds do not flower to form seed heads. For noxious weeds take action as required by that local government authority. Dispose of weeds off site.

Plant replacement

Monthly for 12 months

The contractor will be responsible to replace missing or dead plants within fourteen days of detection. They must be of similar size and quality and identical species to that lost. Replacement plantings are to be watered for the first 12 weeks.

Stakes and tree guards

Monthly for 12 months

Repair any tree ties or tree guards that have broken or are missing. Replace as soon as practicable after being identified.



Table 7-2 Recommended monitoring and maintenance schedule (Year 2 and Year 3) Monitoring Timing Maintenance

Mulch/weed suppression. Plant nutrient deficiency.

Every 6 months in Year 2 and 3.

Addition of mulch where required. Addition of fertiliser/nutrients where required. Weeds controlled within 2 metres of planting locations, blanket treatment of weed areas if appropriate or targeted treatment of weed outbreaks.

Weed and plant health

Every 6 months in Year 2 and 3.

Weeds not smothering plants, healthy active plant growth, replanting required if the target percentage survival rate not achieved.

7.3.3 Weed management Details of the weed management plan would follow the general approaches outlined in the FFMP and CEMP and follow the Roads and Maritime Biodiversity Guidelines (Roads and Maritime 2011) requirements. Focus would be on weeds identified in recovery plans as a threat to invertebrates (for example Lantana and Camphor Laurel).

Weed management will be undertaken as part of the Roads and Maritime ongoing maintenance of landscaped areas. Weed management in areas of potential invertebrate habitat and/or lowland rainforest communities will be undertaken by suitably qualified and experienced contractors that are familiar with threatened species and communities of the area.

The management of specific weeds in habitat for threatened invertebrates would be conducted as specified in the TRCRPMP. The need for ongoing weed management would be informed by the condition monitoring program.

7.4 Mitigation goals and corrective actions The operational mitigation goals, mitigation measures for threatened invertebrates and associated corrective actions are detailed in Table 7-3.



Table 7-3 Mitigation goals, mitigation and performance measures and corrective actions – operation Mitigation goals Proposed mitigation

measure Monitoring/timing frequency Trigger for corrective actions Corrective actions Responsible party for


No substantial reduction in activity of threatened invertebrates in Section 10 and 11 due to the introduction of artificial lighting or ongoing operational traffic lighting.

• Street lighting within 500 m of invertebrate habitat would use high-pressure sodium or LED lamps, which have a low attractiveness for invertebrates.

• Lighting at interchanges in Section 10 within 500 m of invertebrate habitat would be shielded so that they would not be directly visible to areas of threatened invertebrate habitat.

• Lighting within 500 m of the invertebrate habitat would be installed as low as safely possible to reduce light spill.

Annual monitoring of threatened invertebrate habitat condition and activity to commence at start of the construction phase and continue until such time as the use and effectiveness of mitigation measures can be demonstrated to have been achieved over a minimum of three successive monitoring periods.

Evidence of a reduction in threatened invertebrate activity in areas of known habitat during annual monitoring.

Investigate potential adaptive changes to the monitoring program (including timing and density of monitoring events), as well as potential design changes to lights, including lamp type, design of shields and potential implementation of filters and height of light, as required.

Roads and Maritime

Project Ecologist

To maintain and enhance areas of threatened invertebrate habitat outside of the project in Section 10 and 11 for three consecutive successful monitoring periods.

• Implementation of weed management measures throughout operational period.

• Design of revegetation plans with respect to increasing connectivity between Threatened Invertebrate habitats.

Annual monitoring of threatened invertebrate habitat condition and activity to commence at start of the construction phase and continue until such time as the use and effectiveness of mitigation measures can be demonstrated to have been achieved over a minimum of three successive monitoring periods.

Evidence of a reduction in threatened invertebrate habitat condition in areas of known habitat during annual monitoring.

Investigate potential causes for the decline in habitat condition.

Implement additional measures such as increasing weed management, rectifying if there are issues with runoff, further revegetation to reduce edge effects etc.

Roads and Maritime

Project Ecologist



Mitigation goals Proposed mitigation measure

Monitoring/timing frequency Trigger for corrective actions Corrective actions Responsible party for corrective action implementation

At least 90 per cent of the plants planted as part of the revegetated areas have survived after the first year and 80 per cent survived after three consecutive monitoring events.

• Revegetation of areas within the road reserve and in select adjacent known or potential habitat patches where conditions are considered suitable for threatened invertebrate species and their host plants as per the UDLP.

• Regular maintenance activities such as watering, mulching, weed control and supplementary plantings as required as per the Revegetation Specification.

• Inspect, monitor and maintain revegetated areas for a period of three years post-construction.

Annual monitoring of threatened invertebrate habitat condition and activity to commence at start of the construction phase.

For the first twelve months monitoring of revegetation will be monthly. It will then go to every 6 months for two years.

Monitoring will occur in Spring/Summer to evaluate the success of revegetation against performance objectives

Inspections and monitoring and maintenance requirements not undertaken. More than 10% of plants have died after year one, and more than 20% have died after three consecutive monitoring events.

Review and update maintenance methods as required.

Any failed areas to be reseeded within 6 weeks of trigger.

Ongoing monitoring and maintenance undertaken until plant health and/or ecological condition of habitat has been maintained at 80% survival after three consecutive monitoring events.

Project Contractor

Roads and Maritime

Project Ecologist



8. Monitoring program The threatened invertebrate monitoring program will track the progress of the threatened invertebrate habitat patches and threatened invertebrate populations that have been identified adjacent to the road corridor and document the effectiveness of mitigation measures.

Monitoring will be undertaken at each threatened invertebrate location and any additional rehabilitation sites. The monitoring program will be refined if found ineffective during monitoring programs.

A current NSW scientific licence (‘permits to collect’) will be held for all for all threatened invertebrate monitoring surveys undertaken.

8.1 Objectives Monitoring will continue until such time as the use and effectiveness of mitigation measures can be demonstrated to have been achieved over a minimum of three successive monitoring periods. The overall monitoring objectives are to:

● Evaluate the success of mitigation measures ● Further understand the habitat requirements of the Southern Pink Underwing Moth and Atlas

Rainforest Ground Beetle in the vicinity of the Project ● Determine the extent of indirect impacts of the project on the habitat and threatened invertebrate

and host plant populations and identify any additional mitigation measures that may minimise these impacts; and

● Monitor changes to threatened invertebrate populations in habitats adjacent to the project.

Monitoring frequency and methodology may be refined, subject to progress against the above objectives. In order to fulfil these objectives a number of ecological variables will be monitored, each variable is discussed below.

8.2 Southern Pink Underwing Moth

8.2.1 Methods, timing, intensity, duration Population Monitoring

Monitoring continued breeding activity of the Southern Pink Underwing Moth populations in habitats adjacent to the project will follow a similar approach to that taken during pre-construction baseline surveys. During monitoring surveys the presence, age and abundance of Southern Pink Underwing Moths, eggs, and larvae will be recorded, as well as any potentially influential factors.

Surveys will consist of one inspection night per month over the course of five months between November and March; this is intended to avoid intra-seasonal variation. These surveys will be planned to coincide with optimum ambient environmental conditions for the species, taking into consideration factors such as past and present rainfall events, and will be undertaken during the construction period and operation until such time as the use and effectiveness of mitigation measures can be demonstrated to have been achieved over a minimum of three successive monitoring periods (years). The results of these surveys will also be used to determine the efficacy of using bait traps as a monitoring approach.

Monitoring survey will focus on the two control transects, and five impact monitoring transects adjacent to the road alignment. Monitoring locations are presented in Figure 3-3.

The proposed monitoring period has been developed taking into account intraseasonal variation, and aims to cover the span of breeding activity for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth as follows:

● November to January, focus on detecting adult Southern Pink Underwing Moths during the peak fruiting season; and



● February and March, corresponds with peak breeding activity for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth, based on findings of previous surveys (BAAM 2012, BAAM 2013 and BAAM 2014).

Monitoring surveys will be conducted in conjunction with habitat condition assessments and monitoring for Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle (refer Section 8.3). Survey results will be documented in the threatened invertebrate and host plant populations annual monitoring and research report.

Habitat Condition Monitoring

A baseline assessment of habitat condition (using the scoring criteria described in Section 3.2.1) has been conducted for each accessible patch of threatened invertebrate habitat located in proximity to the Project (Table 8-1). The results of this assessment will be used to monitor habitat during operation.

The aim of the habitat condition monitoring is to ensure that habitat polygons either retain, or achieve a higher habitat condition score relative to the scores attributed prior to construction. All polygons of known and potential habitat, including rehabilitation areas, will be monitored annually in conjunction with Southern Pink Underwing Moth population monitoring events. Any polygons of known or potential Southern Pink Underwing Moth habitat identified in Figure 3-2 that fall below their pre-construction condition score will trigger further investigation and potential corrective actions. The baseline assessment of habitat condition is presented in Table 8-1.

Table 8-1 Baseline habitat condition scores for Southern Pink Underwing Moth ranked according to condition. Habitat Condition ranking Area (ha) Known habitat Potential habitat (where host

is present) Potential habitat (where host was not detected)

0 0 0 0.3 1 0 0 3.7 2 0 0 1.2 3 0 3.9 3.0 4 0 5.2 4.2 5 7.6 9.7 11.6 6 25.5 8.3 0 No Ranking1 0 0 16.6 Total Area 33.2 27.1 40.6 1 Rankings were allocated only to polygons that have been visited as part of this study or previous surveys (BAAM 2012, 2013 and 2014).

Monitoring Host plant populations

The monitoring methodology for host plants includes the following:

● Propagules within each of the treatments (2–4 treatments) would be clearly identified in each of the different plantings areas, comprising commercial potting medium with fertiliser application

● The health and development of plantings, including the height and girth of individuals in each of the treatments, are to be measured, photographed and recorded at six monthly intervals

● The condition and success of the planting trial would be monitored at six monthly intervals ● Post-construction monitoring would focus on flowering and fruit production within planted areas and

possibly the establishment of seedlings and any suckering of individuals. It is envisaged that post-construction monitoring would be able to determine if the plantings are developing into viable populations; and

● Biannual monitoring would be conducted in conjunction with two of the threatened invertebrate survey events and annual reports are to be prepared, which would cover threatened invertebrate and host plant populations.

The targeted survey (BAAM 2012), subsequent targeted surveys (BAAM 2013) and pre-construction surveys (BAAM 2014) provide the information necessary for comparison through the construction and post-construction monitoring periods. These will be used as an indicator of change in condition at monitoring sites in conjunction with the habitat condition scoring surveys.



Monitoring sites (>50 m from the construction corridor with similar microhabitat characteristics) have been selected as part of the pre-construction survey. The location of these sites are presented in Figure 3-3.

8.3 Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle

8.3.1 Methods, timing, intensity, duration The monitoring program will be implemented during construction and post-construction to assess the presence and abundance of Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle within offset sites and revegetation sites. This will adopt a similar approach to that of previous surveys (BAAM 2012, 2013, 2014). The approach entails an ecologist traversing areas of rainforest habitat and checking carefully and thoroughly under rocks, logs and large plant roots for the presence of the burrows that are characteristic of these beetles. The location and number of these burrows will be counted to provide details on presence and abundance. In offset sites and revegetation sites where beetles have not been detected previously, the surveys will focus on identifying potentially new colonisations of these areas. Following an extensive search for burrows, nocturnal monitoring for Atlas Rainforest Beetle will also be conducted in specific areas where one or more burrows have been located.

Monitoring is proposed annually, with survey between November and March to coincide with the height and end of the wet season (March/April, post beetle dispersal) and at the commencement of the wet season (November to January). These surveys will coincide with monitoring of Southern Pink Underwing Moth and its host plant.

Monitoring surveys for Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle will be conducted in conjunction with monitoring events for Southern Pink Underwing Moth using the same survey transects. Monitoring will be undertaken during the construction period and operation until such time as the use and effectiveness of mitigation measures can be demonstrated to have been achieved over a minimum of three successive monitoring periods (years).

The results will be documented in an annual monitoring and research report for threatened invertebrates. Transect locations are illustrated in Figure 3-3.

The baseline targeted survey (BAAM 2012) focused on identifying and quantifying potential and known habitat for Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle along the proposed corridor. A pre-construction survey has been undertaken (BAAM 2014) to provide an estimate of the occurrence and abundance of beetles in the known and potential habitat areas. This will be used as a preliminary reference for indicating potential change in populations at impact sites during the construction and post-construction monitoring phase.

8.4 Revegetation

8.4.1 Objective Evaluate the success of habitat revegetation at locations adjacent to existing threatened invertebrate habitats.

8.4.2 Timing and methods After the first year of maintenance of habitat revegetation (Section 7.3.2), annual monitoring of revegetated areas would be undertaken using a condition assessment approach, modified from the BioBanking assessment methodology (DECC 2008), to evaluate the progress of revegetation against benchmark data for the target vegetation community. These tasks will be integrated into the landscape design for the project, as revegetation would benefit a diversity of flora species. Annual monitoring reports will be submitted by the contractor to Roads and Maritime detailing the success of revegetation. Monitoring of revegetation will be undertaken twice a year (in autumn and spring) during construction and then annually during operation until the mitigation measures presented in this plan have been proven successful for three consecutive monitoring periods nominally three years.



Following selection of monitoring sites, a cluster of permanent monitoring plots (20 m x 20 m) would be established in revegetation areas, with the number of plots dependent on the size of the site area. The following would be recorded in each plot:

● Native plant species richness ● Native over storey cover ● Native mid-storey cover ● Native ground cover (grasses) ● Native ground cover (shrubs) ● Native ground cover (other); and ● Exotic plant cover.

Monitoring of revegetation areas would commence 12 months after initial establishment and would occur annually (in spring/summer) for a period of three years or until success of the revegetation has been achieved against performance criteria. The Geographic coordinates of plot locations are to be recorded and a photograph taken of the centre of the plot from the south east corner.

Monitoring for threatened invertebrate habitat revegetation will coincide with the Lowland Rainforest communities as outlined in Section 9.4 of the TRCRPMP.



8.5 Performance indicators and corrective actions The monitoring program, performance indicators and corrective actions if monitoring finds poor outcomes is outlined within Table 8-2.

Table 8-2 Monitoring performance indicators and corrective actions

Monitoring program

Trigger Corrective action

Corrective actions Responsibility

Southern Pink Underwing Moth Annual surveys Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle Annual surveys

Evidence of a decline in numbers over a three year post-construction survey period.

• If decline is noted in invertebrate numbers at a monitoring event from the baseline evaluate potential causes.

• Review monitoring locations and cross reference with monitoring results of rehabilitation areas and monitoring of Lowland Rainforest communities in Section 10 and Section 11.

• Evaluate population numbers at the control sites and investigate additional areas of habitat beyond the project, and consider options to improve habitat condition and connectivity.

• If a decline is still noted after three consecutive years of monitoring engage with OEH and EPA and consider provisional measures.

• This may include a review and update of the monitoring program to consider more intense monitoring or different techniques to identify if the decline is as a result of the Project.

• If there is an additional residual impact to threatened invertebrates Roads and Maritime will evaluate the need for additional offsets.

Roads and Maritime

Invertebrate habitat condition monitoring (known habitat retained outside the project clearing boundary)

Evidence of a decline in habitat condition after each monitoring event. Less than 100% survival rate of retained host plants.

• Evaluate reasons for the decline such as weed incursion, edge effects or natural event.

• Review and revise management techniques as appropriate.

• Continue monitoring program to evaluate effectiveness of revised management actions.

Roads and Maritime

Rehabilitation condition monitoring Host plant condition monitoring

Evidence of a decline in host plant quantity or habitat condition. 75% survival of tubestock individuals of threatened invertebrate host plants replanted in revegetation areas.

• If decline in host plant numbers or habitat condition is noted during any annual period of monitoring, review and revise management techniques as appropriate.

• Erect temporary shade cloth adjacent to host plants where these occur in edge areas to minimise dust impacts and increased exposure until plants have stabilised.

• If decline noted after three years post-construction monitoring, cross reference with monitoring of threatened invertebrates.

• Investigate additional areas of habitat beyond the project and consider options to improve habitat condition and connectivity.

• If decline still noted in subsequent two monitoring periods engage with OEH and consider provisional measures.

• Further monitoring of provisional measures would be planned at this stage.

Roads and Maritime



8.6 Evaluation, project review and reporting The Annual Monitoring and Research Reports for Threatened Invertebrates will include:

● The results of the population surveys including mapping the location and extent of habitats and populations and baseline data for inclusion in the project monitoring program

● An analysis of the data to determine if change has taken place and/or demonstrate if there is enough power to detect the specified levels of unacceptable change; and

● Reporting any change to performance indicators and how these were addressed in terms of actions implemented.

8.6.1 Responsibility Roads and Maritime and its specialist consultants or contractors would be responsible for reporting and evaluating the monitoring information collected.

8.6.2 Timing A brief annual report would be prepared for distribution to relevant government agencies. This reporting would document the methods and results of each monitoring event (up to date) and a discussion relating to the current year’s results of monitoring to the results of the previous year.

A final report would be prepared at the conclusion of the monitoring program. This report would incorporate all the methods and results of the monitoring and recommend any provisional measures (if deemed necessary) to facilitate the long-term survival of the threatened invertebrates and habitats adjacent to the Project.

8.6.3 Adaptive management There is potential for natural variation in threatened invertebrate populations for a range of reasons. Further monitoring / assessment will be undertaken if a decline of population numbers has been identified as being attributable to the construction and operation of the Project. The monitoring / assessment will identify the cause of the decline and / or remedial actions to be commenced as necessary, taking into account potential causes such as dry seasons, population fluctuations and other natural variation. The following provides an indicative adaptive management strategy for the threatened invertebrates.

Adaptive management is the process of continued site assessment against established performance indicators to determine whether a site is responding positively to management approaches intended to achieve quantifiable ecological improvement targets. Where the site does not respond in a manner desired, the adaptive management framework identifies the need for action to arrest negative responses (such as reduce plant mortality) or encourage positive site responses (such as an increase in watering frequency) to redress the imbalance such that targets will be more likely to be achieved.

A target of 75% survival of tubestock individuals of threatened invertebrate host plants has been set for offset sites and revegetation areas. Where plants have been retained adjacent to the road boundary a target of 100% survival of those plants has been set. Should results of the monitoring indicate a substantial decline in the health or number of individuals below the target rate of each site, adaptive management measures will need to be implemented to ensure there will be no net-loss of individuals as a result of the Project.

Implementation of the monitoring program and the development of subsequent management measures based on the monitoring will be developed as part of the monitoring framework, which links with the offset site rehabilitation plans and they will be prepared at the same time. A number of adaptive management responses will be available if monitoring reveals an apparent decline in a population of threatened invertebrate host plants during construction or post-construction. These may include:



● A review of the records of the watering regime and mulch treatment together with the location (particularly in terms of likely hydrological conditions) to determine the most likely cause(s) of the health/mortality issues and subsequent readjustment of maintenance regimes

● Active weed control to minimise competition ● Watering of plantings when young whilst becoming established ● Replacement of any planted individuals that have perished if survival rate below 75%

(ecologist/horticulturalist) ● Replacement of any existing retained individuals that have perished due to indirect impacts

associated with the proposal such as edge effects and altered hydrology (ecologist/horticulturalist); and

● Reporting of losses of host plants and decreases in abundance of threatened invertebrate populations and likely reasons within the annual monitoring reports (ecologist).

If a decline has been identified despite all described procedures being enacted, the corrective procedures described in Section 8.5 will be implemented.



9. Summary table and implementation schedule

A summary of the actions proposed in the above plan is provided in Table 9-1. It also identifies the person responsible for the actions and the estimated timing of the Project.



Table 9-1 Summary table and implementation schedule of management plan

No. Task Responsibility Pre-construction

Construction Post-construction (Year and Season)

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Summ

er

Autu

mn

Wint

er

Sprin

g

Summ

er

Autu

mn

Wint

er

Sprin

g

Summ

er

Autu

mn

Wint

er

Sprin

g

Summ

er

Autu

mn

Wint

er

Sprin

g

Summ

er

Autu

mn

Wint

er

Sprin

g

1. Pre-construction management 1.1 Undertake targeted invertebrate

baseline surveys. Identification and mapping of habitats and host plants.

Roads and Maritime

X

1.2 Preparation of CEMP including Weed Management Plan.

Roads and Maritime and Contractor

X

1.3 Demarcation of exclusion zones. Pre-clearing survey to identify habitats and host plants in the field.

Contractor X

1.4 Host plant propagation trial strategy. (if host plants confirmed to be impacted)

Roads and Maritime

X

1.5 Finalise UDLP including areas for revegetation of invertebrate habitat

Roads and Maritime

X

1.6 Confirm street lighting design and lighting to be used during construction.


X

2. Construction management 2.1 Construction work method

statements Contractor X

2.2 Construction induction and training

Contractor X

2.3 Temporary exclusion fencing Contractor X 2.4 Vegetation clearing procedure Contractor X 2.5 Lighting shielding Contractor X 2.6 Ongoing management of dust

and noise Contractor X

2.7 Ongoing management of predators

Contractor X

2.8 Ongoing management of weeds Contractor X 2.9 Undertake trial for propagation of

host plants (only if host plants are impacted)

Roads and Maritime

X

2.10 Commence revegetation and habitat improvement procedures


X

3. Operational management 3.1 Revegetation / landscaping Contractor X X X X X X X X 3.2 Weed management Contractor X X X X X X X X 4. Operational monitoring program 4.1 Habitat condition assessment for

the moth and beetle* Ecologist Annually – one

X X X X X X X X X



No. Task Responsibility Pre-construction

Construction Post-construction (Year and Season)

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Summ

er

Autu

mn

Wint

er

Sprin

g

Summ

er

Autu

mn

Wint

er

Sprin

g

Summ

er

Autu

mn

Wint

er

Sprin

g

Summ

er

Autu

mn

Wint

er

Sprin

g

Summ

er

Autu

mn

Wint

er

Sprin

g

night per month for five months (November to March)

4.2 Monitoring of moth and beetle populations*

Ecologist Annually – one night per month for five months (November to March)

X X X X X X X X X

4.3 Monitoring host plant populations for the moth*

Ecologist Annually – one night per month for five months (November to March)

X X X X X X X

4.4 Habitat revegetation monitoring* Ecologist X X X X 4.5 Evaluation and reporting Ecologist X X X X X

* as per MCOA condition D8(k), ongoing monitoring during operation of the SSI (for operation/ongoing impacts) is to be undertaken until such time as the use and effectiveness of mitigation measures can be demonstrated to have been achieved over a minimum of three successive monitoring periods (years).



10. References Biodiversity Assessment and Management (BAAM) (2012). Ballina to Woodburn Pacific Highway Upgrade Targeted Threatened Invertebrate Study. Report prepared for Sinclair Knight Merz.

Biodiversity Assessment and Management (BAAM) (2013). Supplementary survey for Pink Underwing Moth. Report prepared for Sinclair Knight Merz.

Biodiversity Assessment and Management (BAAM) (2014). Woolgoolga to Ballina Pacific Highway Upgrade Pre-construction Survey and Nocturnal Monitoring for Conservation Significant Invertebratesi. Report prepared for Roads and Maritime Services.

DECC (2012). Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle – Profile, viewed 9 July 2013, http://threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/profile.aspx?id=10564

Eisenbeis, G. and F. Hassel (2000) Attraction of nocturnal insects to street lights - a study of municipal lighting systems in a rural area of Rheinhessen (Germany). Natur und Landschaft 75(4):145-156.

Herbison-Evans, D., J. Moss & N. Hewett (2004). Phyllodes imperialis H.Druce, 1888. [Online]. Available from: http://www.usyd.edu.au/macleay/larvae/cato/imper.html.

Monteith, G. B. and Turco, F. (n. d.). A Guide to Species of the Ground Beetle Genus Nurus (Coleoptera: Caribidae) in the Lismore District, NSW. Queensland Museum, Brisbane.

New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) (2001). Threatened Species Management Policy and Procedures Statement Policy No. 9. Policy for the Translocation of Threatened Fauna in New South Wales. New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Roads and Maritime (2011). Biodiversity Guidelines: Protecting and Managing Biodiversity on RTA projects. Department of Roads and Maritime Services.

Roads and Maritime (2015). Woolgoolga to Ballina Pacific Highway Upgrade: Lowland Rainforest and Threatened Rainforest Plants Management Plan Version 2.0. Department of Roads and Maritime Services.

Sands, DPA (2012). Review of Australian Phyllodes imperialis Druce (Lepidoptera: Erebidae) with description of a new subspecies from subtropical Australia. Australian Entomologist 39: 281-292.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC). (2011). Commonwealth Listing Advice on Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.



Appendix A – Response to expert and agency comments Expert Comments

ID No Recommendation Recommendation has been addressed (Version 1)

How recommendation has been addressed (Version 2)

TIMP1 Mapping of Wardell Site. The surveyed site and other rainforest ecosystems along the Richmond River have been referred to in past times as the ‘Big Scrub’. To place emphasis on the importance of threatened species and ecosystems, in the Introduction it would be helpful to refer to the site as a remnant of the Big Scrub, indicate remaining intact areas, and those nearby protected (by tenure) as national parks.

Adopted- plan to be updated prior to implementation.

Reference to ‘Big Scrub’ has been included in Section 2.1.

TIMP2 A Map to show areas proposed for clearing (‘before’ revision) and ‘after’ revision of boundaries would be helpful to readers to reflect commitment to avoiding damage to protected species habitats. Show current locations of food plants for the two (Lepidoptera) species of conservation concern, Carronia multisepalea and Pararistolocia praevenosa.

To be reviewed prior to implementation

Maps of host plants from pre-construction surveys have been included. A map of confirmed and potential habitat for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth and identified populations in relation to the new alignment has also been included. The current road corridor alignment is shown.

TIMP3 Early in section 2.2.1 note the habitats occupied by the two targeted insect species (+ Richmond birdwing butterfly) are defined as threatened Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia, by Federal and NSW Governments.

Adopted- plan updated Addressed in Section 2.2.1

TIMP4 Pink Underwing Moth - name. Add “Southern” (to common name); update scientific name for subspecies (i.e. Phyllodes imperialis smithersi). Integrate in text: ‘larvae of the southern subspecies of moth are dependent on one food plant vine, Carronia multisepalea, found only in rainforests of north-eastern NSW and south-eastern Queensland” or similar….

Adopted- plan updated Added throughout document.

TIMP5 In section 2.3 Add “Fragmentation of habitats from disturbance may result in in-breeding depression”. Adopted- plan updated Added to all relevant impact sections. TIMP6 Acknowledge State Agency for issue of ‘permits to collect’ (for protected insect surveys). Adopted- plan to be updated

prior to implementation. The requirement for a ‘permit to collect’ has been added to Section 6.3.4.

TIMP7 Conservation status update. Threatened species should be reviewed (by agency) every 3 years to take account of new information. Appendix B, pp. 35-

Adopted- plan updated. Section 1.3.2

TIMP8 Add weeds to Threats. List local invasive weeds so that appropriate agencies and their control methods (e.g. herbicides) can be identified (e.g. green panic, molasses grass, lantana, camphor laurel) and included in lists of threats for the overall ecosystem.

Avoid using exotic grasses to re-enforce road edge embankments (common practice in Qld). Some (e.g. signal grass) are known to repel indigenous insects

Adopted- plan updated Section 4 and Section 6.3.8.

TIMP9 Fruiting plants for adult moths. Plants suitable for adult food and species that fruit during flight seasons for the moths (e.g. November – March) include: Lillypillies, Syzygium australe, S. smithii and other local species; Waterhousea floribunda, Ficus spp., including F. opposita, F. coronata.

Adopted- plan to be updated prior to implementation.

Suitable fruit species for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth are now included in the background information for this species (Table 2-1).

TIMP10 Translocation of moth eggs and larvae (from site of disturbance). Doubtful conservation value unless stages are present on targeted vines, and can be moved prior to clearing. Pupae likely to be present

To be reviewed prior to implementation This measure is still proposed to be conservative and

ascertain whether this is an effective mitigation measure or



Expert Comments



on nearby plants are at risk but are very difficult to locate. not. The current provisions in Section 6.3.4 state “ if a case arises where individuals of the Southern Pink Underwing Moth are found, they would be relocated by an ecologist to areas of suitable habitat more than 100 m outside of the Project boundary”.

“Larvae, eggs or pupae in particular would be relocated to another host plant vine (Carronia multisepalea) in each case with a preference for a plant positioned under the protection of the rainforest canopy that has ample foliage and at least some evidence of host use by the moth (e.g. recent feeding activity; or 1–2 larvae already present). The development of any relocated immature stages would be monitored for three weeks following translocation. All host plants, Southern Pink Underwing Moths and larvae identified within the clearing footprint will be accurately recorded. “

This will be undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologist with relevant permits. N.B. Pre-clearance surveys did not find any host plants, moth eggs or larvae within areas of proposed disturbance. No direct impacts to breeding habitat for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth are anticipated.

TIMP11 Translocation of vine Carronia multisepalea (no longer proposed). Doubtful value, doubtfully achievable. However, attempts might be made to propagate plants by using rhizomes removed from the path of disturbance.


Adopted- plan updated. Translocation of the host plant has been removed and Propagation trials have been added. This includes propagation from cuttings. N.B. Propogation trials will only be undertaken should the host plant be confirmed within the clearing limits and impacts are unavoidable. The host plant will then be planted into revegetation areas or offset areas post construction as an alternative measure (Section 5.3.5).

TIMP12 Plants to minimise edge effects. Soil-binding (& fire retardant) plants for embankments and vine to stabilise edge effects (First check that Wardell, NSW is within the native range for each species): Lomandra hystrix, L. longifolia (moist woodland form), Rubus spp.: (e.g. R. parvifolius, R. moluccanus, R. risifolius, R. probus, R. moorei) (especially useful for steep embankment / moist slopes), Carex apressa, other Carex spp. Solanum spp. Ficus coronate, Cordyline spp. Vine: Pandorea jasminiodes

Adopted- plan to be updated prior to implementation

Plants to be used in revegetation will be specified in the UDLP. Revegetation will occur where possible in the project corridor in areas adjacent to existing rainforest communities to limit edge effects.

TIMP13 Control sites. Nearby sites of little value when comparing undisturbed habitats with disturbed areas unless positive results are obtained. More distant sites monitored are of value to indicate: (i) presence, number and persistence of breeding in nearby sites, (ii) seasonal patterns, and when stages are most


Adopted – plan updated. Control sites located at a distance to the area of clearing are now proposed (refer Section 3, Figure 3-3 and Section 8).



Expert Comments



likely to be present and (iii) whereabouts of meta-populations likely to influence colonising of disturbed and re-planted (with vine) areas. As very few vines and patches of vines are used even in undisturbed areas, negative results (no eggs or larvae seen) are likely to be frequent.

TIMP14 Pre-clearing surveys. An indication of vines (Carronia multisepalea, Pararistolocia praevenosa) that have been removed or destroyed, and as a % of the overall food plants in the area would provide a useful record. The Reviewer is of the opinion that the site once disturbed is unlikely to support breeding by the moth until vegetation has matured and providing deep shade for at least 10 or more years


Adopted – plan updated. Added to the clearing protocol in Section 6.3.4.

TIMP15 Rehabilitation of breeding sites for the moth.

Investigate opportunities to rehabilitate off-site habitats. for both moth and beetle, e.g. (i) private covenants, nature refuges and other tenures; (ii) buy-back of private land for add to local national parks (they do not need to share boundaries).

Re-vegetation. If continued for more than 2 years, local community groups can be invited to participate in a coordinated program. Local Landcare groups actively rehabilitate sites in northern NSW (e.g. ‘Rainforest Rescue’). Local members could be encouraged to take “ownership” of their efforts to ‘save the endangered moth’. Most Incorporated groups are ‘not-for-profit’ organisations but they always need financial assistance to support operating costs (e.g. herbicides) and other activities for rehabilitating bushlands.

Habitat rehabilitation for the Atlas Ground Beetle. Very little is known about the ecology of this beetle and it is therefore difficult to assess the potential for rehabilitation of sites to make them suitable for the beetle and its prey. Information from the surveys would indicate that burrow need some overhang, protection (e.g. overhanging log) or embankment and it is possible that these micro-habitats can be simulated in areas rehabilitated. Use of night vision glasses in surveys could contribute to information about nocturnal activity away from burrows, prey, ground shelters and any particular plants used for making burrows (other than While Cedar).

Security for rehabilitation sites. Signage for sites (+ protected species) is desirable but security needs to be considered. The tenure needs clarification so that protection can be seen as a long term commitment. The moth has potential $$ value for trade (especially for overseas collectors of specimens) but ‘collecting’ is not known to be a threat at present.

To be reviewed prior to implementation.

These recommendations are noted and will be considered as part of the offset strategy for the moth and beetle in the W2B Offset Strategy. Roads and Maritime will explore potential to utilise local community groups in revegetation projects.

TIMP16 Support for ‘Feasibility Study to develop a Recovery Plan’

Recommend support be provided to an appropriate nursery for propagation studies on Carronia multisepalea (e.g. Dorrigo Environment Watch Inc.) and develop methods to propagate the vine.

Community workshops. Community workshops can also be included in any local program and by providing support funds. A community workshop on the Southern Pink Underwing Moth was run for Barung Landcare (May 2008) at Maleny (Mary Cairncross Scenic Reserve; cost: ca $2,000. The venue

To be reviewed prior to implementation.

These recommendations are noted and will be considered as part of the offset strategy for the moth and beetle. These measures may form indirect, supplementary offset measures.



Expert Comments



was provided by Council. Community participation was encouraged using the Richmond Birdwing Butterfly Conservation program

TIMP17 Lighting. Lights and their wattage to be minimised; lights mounted as low as possible, and limited where possible to road & signage illumination. Avoid mercury vapour lights; sodium vapour may need evaluation (effects on target species not known).

• Avoid penetration by lights into forest or water courses to avoid disruption of flight behaviour, flight paths, host and mate-finding by the moths.

• No disturbance to southern (and northern ssp.) pink underwing moth behaviour (flight, feeding, avoidance) has been seen (using night vision glasses) at localities in Queensland when lights are 500 m or further from habitat. It is not possible to predict how longer-term exposure to lights will influence moth behaviour without experiments or observations. Sometimes insects will ‘condition’ themselves to light disturbance.

• Studies on longer-term exposure light requires more research; this may justify use of night vision glasses for a monitoring program.


Adopted – plan updated. Mitigation measures during construction and operation have been added to address lighting. Refer to Section 4.2, Section 6.3.5 and Section 7.3.1.

TIMP18 Other edge effects.

• Dust management in construction and diesel exhausts may have an impact on the larvae of the moth

• Monitoring of dust settlement on foliage may provide an indication of impacts on larvae feeding.

• The recommendation that disturbance should not occur within 500m of breeding sites appears impractical. Therefore an attempt at no disturbance within 100m of breeding sites appears more feasible.

Adopted- plan updated. Additional wording has been added to identify impacts from dust and describe mitigation measures and corrective actions. These are outlined in Section 5.3.7, Section 6.4 and Section 7.4.

TIMP19 Methods for Trapping and Monitoring


• Monitoring eggs and larvae for numbers and distribution are appropriate methods for determining presence or absence, health of habitat, season and suitability of plant phenotype when stages are present.

• Correct identification of eggs and moth larvae requires experienced personnel. Similar common moth species (e.g. Eudocima fullonia) utilise the same food plant as used by P. imperialis smithersi.

• Monitoring adults with lights is likely to be of little value for highly mobile moths; they are


Adopted – Monitoring methods have been updated. Refer to Section 6.3.4 and Section 8.2.



Expert Comments



rarely seen unless feeding. Lights occasionally attract moths but traps have proven (in SE Qld) to be ineffective and may disrupt normal flight behaviour of the target species.

• Lights and light traps (in the forest) may have unwanted impacts on non-target species and disturb the behaviour of other species.

• Fruit baited (e.g. with over-ripe bananas) traps can useful for determining presence/absence of pink underwing moths, especially if mounted in-flight paths.

• Cameras are unlikely to distinguish differences between many species of large night-flying moths (e.g. large silk moths) that occur in the area.

• Night vision glasses are useful research tools for observing host plant selection by female moths, feeding by adults (e.g. on hanging fruit) and flight behaviour. Doubtful value for this – essentially a monitoring project

TIMP20 Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle

• Expert with most experience: Dr Geoff Monteith (retired Hon. Scientist) Queensland Museum.

• Monitoring: Correctly identifying burrows made by the Atlas Beetle would appear to be the best method.

• Traps. Pitfall traps may be useful for determining presence/absence of beetles but the method can also be considered destructive, even when beetles are released, depending on their densities per area of habitat.

• Experienced surveyors are needed to identify burrows and avoid misidentifying burrows of other related beetles in an area.

• Flight? If the beetle is nocturnal or it can fly, night vision glasses may be useful for monitoring beetles when they leave their burrows.

• Off site monitoring of burrows and at control sites need first to establish the identity of this species. Persistence of the beetle after nearby disturbance may be of value in assessing impacts on beetle populations.

• Light interference. Comments on possible effects of lights on the moth’s behaviour may apply to beetle behaviour if it can fly.


Adopted – Plan updated Pre-construction surveys in 2014 utilised a number of the suggested survey techniques (Section 3.2). Monitoring methodology has been updated to include recommended techniques (Refer to Section 8.3).



Agency Comments

EPA

ID No Section (V 1) Recommendation How recommendation has been addressed and where (Version 2)

EPA 1 Appendix K Threatened Invertebrate Management Plan (TIMP)

The EPA considers that the current version of the TIMP provides a rigorous approach to the management of the subject threatened species of invertebrates. However, it is considered the subject MP needs further refinements based on the expert review recommendations. Some of these issues are discussed in the following text.

Expert comments have been addressed where they apply throughout this TIMP.

EPA 2 Section 3.2 While the EPA supports an introduction of a "A monitoring program for rehabilitation areas and retained habitat in the vicinity of the project." it is noted that RMS will need to ensure unrestricted access to the subject land parcels.

Roads and Maritime and the Contractor will manage access to rehabilitation areas within the project corridor to ensure they are not degraded during the planting and maintenance phase. This is discussed in Section 7.3.2.

EPA 3 Sections 4.3.2, 7.2.1

Given that RMS's invertebrate expert Don Sands concludes habitat disturbance should not occur within 100m (refer TIMP18) of breeding sites the EPA suggests that the proposed baseline assessments and the following monitoring program should be based on this criterion.

The EPA notes that inconsistencies occur in relation to the geographic extent of the proposed monitoring program. For instance, Section 4.3.1 refers undertaking surveys up to 100 m from the road reserve. Section 4.3.2 refers to recording and marking species that occur within 20m of the project. In comparison, Section 7.2.1 surveys will extend out to a distance of 500m. Revision of these aspects of monitoring program is suggested to ensure consistency.

Baseline surveys (BAAM 2012 and BAAM 2013) identified threatened invertebrates and their habitat within 400 m of the project area. Following review by invertebrate expert and project approval, additional pre-construction surveys (BAAM 2014) revisited these areas.

Monitoring sites have been established during pre-construction surveys (BAAM 2014) and locations are now fixed (Section 5 and Section 8). Five monitoring locations have been established proximate to the project area (located within the area surveyed during baseline and pre-clearance surveys).

Based on targeted baseline and pre-construction surveys no host vine species were identified within 20 m of the construction footprint. The marking of species occurring within 20 m of the Project is in relation to pre-clearing surveys, and ensures consistency with the requirements for marking plants for retention as per the Threatened Flora Management Plan. This is detailed in Section 6.3.4.

EPA 4 Section 4.3.4.1

Confirms that the collection of plant propagation material will be undertaken "by an experienced ecologist/ horticulturalist" For consistency the EPA recommends the plant collection measures contained within Section 4.3.3 of the LRTRPMP should apply.

Collection, storage and propagation of cuttings will be undertaken in accordance with the methods outlined in the Threatened Rainforest Communities and Rainforest Plants Management Plan (TRCRPMP). Although propagation methods undertaken will be reflective of the TRCRPMP, specific details with reference to propagule collection, storage and propagation for Carronia multisepalea are not specified within the TRCRPMP as this species is not a threatened species.

Therefore details for collection of plant material for propogation need to be retained in this document and are found in Section 5.3.4 and Section 5.3.5. of this TIMP.



Agency Comments

EPA


EPA 5 Section 5.3.5 and Table

In relation to the disturbance of Pink Underwing Moth from street lights the MP confirms that street lighting installed at a distance greater that 500m has no impact on Pink Underwing Moth behaviour (flight, feeding, avoidance). The EPA notes that Table 5-1 confirms that street lighting will be installed within 100m of the species' habitat. The EPA is concerned that this reduced separation distance will likely have an adverse impact on this species and asks that RMS adopts additional mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts?

Modelling for the Project indicates that light spill will remain 150 m from identified habitat. Reference to lighting within 100 m of habitat has therefore been amended.

Mitigation measures have now been specified for all lighting within 500 m of habitat (Section 6.3.5)

EPA 6 General Comment

The EPA is of the view the Lowland Rainforest associated with the Southern Pink Underwing Moth (Phyllodes imperialis southern subspecies) and Atlas Rainforest Ground-beetle is of conservation significance. The EPA agrees with RMS's invertebrate expert Don Sands (page 53 invertebrate report) that the subject habitats should be protected as a conservation reserve.

While the subject land parcels are currently under private ownership it is envisaged RMS will be required to purchase the land parcels to construct the highway. Consequently, upon purchase of the subject land parcels the EPA suggests that some consideration should be given to the rehabilitation and securing of these areas in perpetuity.

Recommended Action

D&PI to request RMS to consider the subject landscapes as part of the overall ecological offsets package that are protected in perpetuity.

Roads and Maritime as part of developing the W2B Offset Strategy is exploring options to protect the Lowland Rainforest areas and invertebrate habitats adjacent to the project. This is subject to negotiations with the landholder.

The W2B Offset Strategy is currently under development and includes proposed offset lands that contain Lowland Rainforest in this area. This plan will be submitted to satisfy MCoA D4 as required by the project approval.


The EPA agrees with RMS invertebrate expert Don Sands that weed management associated with the Southern Pink Underwing Moth (Phyllodes imperialis southern subspecies) in lowland rainforest needs to be ongoing. Currently the TIMP limits weed control works to a period of three (3) years post construction.

Weed management within the road corridor will be ongoing as part of operational maintenance. Weed management with revegetation adjacent to the road corridor is proposed to occur three years post construction. If revegetation does not meet performance criteria or habitat condition of invertebrates adjacent to the road corridor has declined after three consecutive monitoring events post construction then an additional two years of management is specified.


It appears that a number of recommendations/observations included within Don Sands critical review remain unaddressed. Further review of this information is warranted.

All expert comments have now been addressed as summarised above.


A good robust MP. Previous agency comments and, most importantly, expert comments have generally been adequately addressed. The EPA have only the following to add.

Acknowledged.

EPA 10 Section 7 Temporary and permanent street lighting and construction lighting have been well dealt with. There seems to be little information and consideration about horizontal (specifically ongoing operational traffic) light spill. Is there detail on temporary/permanent barriers to this, is it also part of revegetation plan requirements/goals?

Impacts associated with vehicle headlights has been reviewed. This impact is not considered to be significant due to a lack of intensity and consistency.



Agency Comments

EPA


EPA 11 Section 7.4 The EPA considers best practice regarding all no-go zones, exclusion zones etc to be under the control/responsibility of one person only, to decrease confusion and make their implementation more robust. The ideal person being the contractor’s Environmental Manager. May not be appropriate to discuss here (prob CEMP) but could be included in current MP.

The project contractor has been defined as the responsible party for management of exclusion zones.

Agency Comments

Commonwealth DoE


DoE 1 Entire plan The invertebrate species of concern under the EPBC Act is the Southern Pink Underwing Moth (Phyllodes imperialis) (PUM).

Noted.

DoE 2 D9 is specific to Koala and is not relevant to address in here. This condition has been removed.

DoE 3 Table 3-1 and Section 3.1

Dates of targeted surveys undertaken in 2013 for the PUM differ from that in the Project Infrastructure report (PIR, appendix J). PIR states that supplementary surveys for the PUM was undertaken in February 2013 and July 2013 (section 3.2.2).

This information has been reviewed and updated in Table 3-1 and Section 3 accordingly. Targeted surveys for PUM were undertaken in Feb-March 2012, Feb-March 2013 and March-April 2014.

DoE 4 Appendix A Appendix A is incomplete as it does not refer to the relevant section/s of the Plan where expert advice has been incorporated. Eg Tables 2-1 and 2-2 have not been updated with reference to Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia.

Wording has been included in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 regarding the relationship between these species and the Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia. This is also discussed in more detail in the paragraph above these tables. Responses to expert comments also state the sections in the TIMP where comments have been incorporated.

DoE 5 Section 2.2 –and Table 2-2

Incomplete (figure references missing) Figure reference has been included in Section 2.2 and Table 2-2.

DoE 6 Appendix A Maps as required by TIMP 2 have not been included in the Plan. Figure 3-1 shows the locations of host plants where larval records occur and potential habitat where only the host plant was recorded.

DoE 7 Section 4 Impacts from fragmentation of habitat does not appear to have been satisfactorily addressed. (also see comment below).

Breeding habitats for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth and Atlas Rainforest Beetle will not be fragmented by the project as they occur to the north of the road corridor in Section 10. Extensive surveys have been completed in Sections 10 and 11 and no host plants for the moth were found within the road corridor. There is potential foraging habitat for the moth within the corridor and to the south however these are



Agency Comments

Commonwealth DoE

ID No Section (V 2) Recommendation How recommendation has been addressed and where (Version 3) minor areas with primary habitats remaining intact to the north. RMS is investigating the potential to secure and manage these habitats as part of the offset program. Therefore it is not anticipated that breeding habitats for the moth will be fragmented. For the Atlas Rainforest Beetle all known and potential habitats occur to the north of the project and will not incur impacts from fragmentation. These core habitats are co-located with the moths’ breeding habitats therefore also have the potential to be secured and managed as part of the offset program.

DoE 8 Section 4 and 5.3.4

Propogation of the host plant is proposed only if this plant is found within the road corridor during pre-clearance surveys. Given the close proximity of breeding habitat/host plant populations to the road corridor, there is a credible risk to Moth’s lifecycle and its habitat from indirect impacts despite proposed dust management, light management measure, particularly during construction. As identified by expert review, it is suggested that RMS initiate a propagation project of the host plant species with a view to rehabilitating Moth habitat areas or planting in offset areas in the longer term. This is further justified by the reviewers recommendation that disturbance should not occur within 500 metres of the breeding sites.

RMS are proposing a number of mitigation measures to avoid and minimise indirect impacts to moth habitat and host plants including from lighting and dust. Monitoring is proposed to ensure these mitigation measures are effective and that no impacts are occurring to the moth, host plants or its lifecycle. Should a host plant be recorded within the construction boundary then the propogation trials will be commenced with a view to rehabilitating host plants in offset areas and adjacent areas to the project.

Table 7-3 now includes additional information regarding the propagation and revegetation of the host plant.

DoE 9 Avoidance measures such as route alternatives considered/implemented are not discussed in the Plan. Section 4.2 discusses the assessment of avoidance measures during detailed design.

DoE 10 Moth population monitoring

Three successive annual monitoring is unlikely to provide statistically robust data to determine the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures. Impacts may become apparent later than in a three year period. It is also unclear if the monitoring is proposed 3 years following construction and/or 3 years following operation.

Section 8.2.1 defines monitoring as continuing until effectiveness of mitigation measures can be demonstrated to have been achieved over a minimum of three successive monitoring periods as per Condition D8(k). Therefore monitoring may continue for more than three years it will depend on the outcomes of the monitoring program. This approach is consistent with the Project’s approval conditions.



Agency Comments

DPE


DPE 1 Chapter 1.1 Stage 1 is expected to commence in May 2015 – please update.

The project was approved in June 2014 – not late 2014.

The Staging Report (March 2015) only describes in detail Stage 1 of the project. Report for subsequent stage(s) has not yet been submitted to the Secretary.

Wording has been updated in Section 1.1

DPE 2 Chapter 1.3.2 and Figure 1-3

The Plan only addresses updating up to the commencement of construction. The Plan shall be amended to include details on the process for monitoring, reviewing and amending the Plan during construction and operation of the project, including the responsibilities for updating and approving the revised plan, the proposed timeframe for review (e.g. annually) and any factors which may trigger a review. Triggers for review should include where threatened species (invertebrates/host plants are located during future surveys and clearing. In such instances, an assessment of the Plan should be undertaken and measures implemented, as required.

Figure 1-3 has been amended to include actions that will occur post construction. Wording in Section 1.3.2 has been added to outline when the plan would be reviewed and triggers such as invertebrates being recorded outside existing known areas.

DPE 3 Chapter 2.2 and Table 2-2

Error – reference source not found – missing references in 1st paragraph and table. Addressed.

DPE 4 Table 4-1 Add movement of moth larvae/pupae as a mitigation measure.

Add revegetation of lowland rainforest as measure to enhance potential moth and rainforest beetle habitat.

Reduction in water quantity and increase in surface water runoff from cleared areas adjacent to lowland rainforest community - issue to be considered and mitigated?

Table 4-1 has been updated with wording regarding suggested mitigation measures.

Water runoff comment appears to be addressed in last comment in Table 4-1.

DPE 5 Chapter 5.3.3 Protocols for exclusion zones should include toolbox talks and induction training of the purpose of exclusion fencing and protocols to be followed in working in close proximity to exclusion zones/fencing.

Consider the use of jersey barriers to physically stop vehicles and plant entering exclusion zones.

The use of Jersey Barriers is not considered necessary. No go boundary fencing will be installed with strict management control to ensure no authorised access. Construction still need to allow for access to undertaken and maintain revegetation works.

DPE 6 Chapters 5.3.4 and 5.3.5

The propagation trial should commence early to establish whether propagation from cuttings is a viable translocation method. The outcomes of the trial would inform the development of the biodiversity offset strategy for sections 10 and 11.

Wording has been included in Sections 5.3.4 and 5.3.5 regarding early propagation trials.

DPE 7 Table 5-2 The mitigation goals listed in the table are mitigation measures rather than goals. The actual goals that the proposed measures implement should be stated, e.g. first row should be characterised as protect threatened invertebrates and habitats, which would be addressed by the measures contained in the 2 columns titled “mitigation goals” and “proposed mitigation measures”.

A review of the mitigation goals should be undertaken to identify and list the goal/objective of the proposed mitigation measures. See Table 6-1.

Wording has been updated in Table 5-2 accordingly.



Agency Comments

DPE


Rename the table as “Mitigation goals, mitigation and performance measures and corrective actions –preconstruction”.

DPE 8 Chapter 6.3.3 Consider the use of barriers such as jersey barriers instead of signs and flagging/tape to physically stop vehicles and plant entering the exclusion zones.

The use of Jersey Barriers is not considered necessary. No go boundary fencing will be installed with strict management control to ensure no unauthorised access. During construction access is still required to undertake and maintain revegetation works.

DPE 9 Table 6-1 Mitigation goal – dust and noise management. Is noise management and no exceedances relevant to a management plan for threatened invertebrates?

The proposed measures to implement the goal of revegetation includes a propagation trial. The trigger for corrective actions should include a threshold figure to measure the performance of propagation ( success/failure rate of propagated plants). The corrective action would be updating of Biodiversity offset Strategy.

Rename the table as “Mitigation goals, mitigation and performance measures and corrective actions –construction”.

Research has been conducted discussing how invertebrates are effected by noise pollution (Morely et al. 2014).

Wording has been included in Table 6-1 regarding triggers for corrective actions.

Table 6-1 has been renamed.

DPE 10 Chapter 7.3.2 The propagation trial would commence pre-construction and trial propagation methods and soil medium. Is it intended that the propagated plants, if successful would be planted in translocation sites? Would monitoring of the translocation sites commence on planting of the propagated plants, which could be some time after the road is operational?

Section 7.3.2 now discusses propagation in more detail, taking recommendations into consideration.

DPE 11 Table 7-3 Rename the table as “Mitigation goals, mitigation and performance measures and corrective actions –operation”.

Table 7-3 has been renamed.

DPE 12 Appendix A ID TIMP1 (and others) mentions the plan will be updated prior to implementation. What is the approval process for the updated plan, by the ER (minor amendments) or the Secretary? Will the updated plan be provided to agencies if approved by the ER?

Agency comments on the draft version (Version 2) have been considered and addressed in this final version (Version 3). Agencies will receive the TIMP for final approval. All comments and responses are summarised in Appendix A.

The approved Threatened Species Management Plans form part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan(s) and sub-plans for the project. As detailed in the CEMPs, should any future changes be required to the approved plan, the proposed changes would be discussed with relevant stakeholders. Following consultation minor changes will be provided to the Environmental Representative for approval, with major changes being formally submitted to DP&E for approval.



Agency Comments

DPE


DPE 13 Section 8.2.1 Future monitoring for Southern Pink Underwing Moth should consider past rainfall that could influence activity of this species and hence monitoring results. Monitoring conducted under more suitable seasonal conditions will determine the efficacy of using bait traps as a monitoring approach.

This was considered broadly in the monitoring method updates, however reference to the BAAM methodology is now included in Section 8.2.1 to reflect details of survey methods and timing.

It has been recommend that survey planning consider environmental cues, including rainfall, in planning the specific timing of surveys to coincide with the most effective ambient conditions for this species. Also that surveys note past rainfall in their results so this can be considered when evaluating effectiveness of bait traps.

DPE 14 Section 8.2.1

Table 9-1

Future monitoring for Southern Pink Underwing Moth should be trialled on a monthly basis during the warmest part of the year (November to March) to reduce the chances of intraseasonal variation affecting the chances of detection.

This has been included within the management plan (monitoring Section 8) and worded similarly to the BAAM reporting.

DPE 15 Section 8.3.1 Future monitoring for Atlas Rainforest Beetle in lowland rainforest adjacent to the Project will be conducted during construction and post construction in accordance with the Management Plan.

This has been included within the management plan (monitoring Section 8) and references the BAAM methodologies. Similar wording to the BAAM reporting has been used. Monitoring will occur during construction and post construction.

DPE 16 Section 8.2.4

Section 8.3.1

Nocturnal monitoring for Atlas Rainforest Beetle should be conducted following an extensive, dedicated search for burrows in the Study Area and should proceed only after one or more burrows have been located.

This is outlined early in the report when the BAAM survey methods are defined. This methodology is also stated in Section 8.3.1 in regards to the ongoing Atlas Rainforest Beetle monitoring methodology.

DPE 17 Section 2.1

Section 3.2.1

As per the Management Plan, future monitoring of Richmond Birdwing will occur during construction and post construction and will incorporate transects T1, T2, T5 and C2, in addition to other locations where Pararistolochia vines have been identified (Figure 3.3), to check on the health of vines.

This species is not included within the TIMP. It is not listed at a state or federal level however was recommended to be incorporated by Don Sands and BAAM. No specific monitoring is proposed for this species however it is noted that monitoring and mitigation for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth will benefit the Richmond Birdwing. During targeted surveys prior to clearing if the Richmond Birdwing is detected it will be recorded, including its host plant. Additionally, the TIMP acknowledges this species has similar habitats to the Southern Pink Underwing Moth (SPUM) and their host plants grow in similar habitats. Further, it indicates host vines and the species will benefit from rehabilitation and offsetting efforts for the SPUM. Additional wording regarding the Richmond Birdwing has been included in Section 6.3.4 and Section 6.3.7.



Appendix B – Dr D Sands Review BALLINA TO WOOLGOOLGA HIGHWAY UPGRADE

A REVIEW OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THREATENED INVERTEBRATES AFFECTED BY ROADWORKS

DPA Sands

Contents Page

1. Summary 2

2. Terms of Reference 3

3. Recommendations 4

Mapping of Wardell Site 4

Threatened Invertebrates Management Plan 5

2.2.1. Habitat requirements 5

Pink Underwing Moth – name 5

2.3. Threats 5

Acknowledge State Agency 5

Conservation status-update 5

Add weeds to Threats 5

Fruiting plants for adult moths 5

Translocation of moth eggs and larvae 5

Plants to minimise edge effects 6

Control sites 6

Pre-clearing surveys 6

Rehabilitation of breeding sites for the moth 6

Support for ‘Feasibility Study to develop a Recovery Plan’ 7

Lighting 8

Other edge effects 8

Methods for trapping and monitoring 8

4. Review of Reports

Background and Purpose 9

Site descriptions 9

Survey Reports 10



Targeted Threatened Invertebrate Study 10

Species Profile. Southern Pink Underwing Moth 10

Supplementary Survey 12

Results of Surveys 13

Species Profile. Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle 14

5. Threatened Invertebrates Management Plan 15

The Monitoring Programme (7) 15

Southern Pink Underwing Moth (7.2) 15

Atlas rainforest Ground Beetle (7.3) 16

Monitoring beetle populations (7.3.1) 17

Rehabilitation of areas and host plants (7.4) 17

Performance measures and corrective actions (7.5) 17

Evaluation, project review and reporting (7.6) 18

Responsibility (7.6.1) 18

Timing (7.6.2) 18

Adaptive Management (7.6.3) 18

Reviewer’s Comments 18

Summary table and implementation schedule of

management plan (Table 8-1). 19

Draft Threatened Invertebrates Management Plan –

Agency Comments (W2B) & Reviewer’s comments 20

Reviewer’s responses according to Section 20

6. Reviewers Dossiers.

An overview of ecosystems and insect habitats

(i) Southern Pink Underwing Moth 20

Biology and population structure 22

Dependence of moth on food plants and ecosystems 24

Food plant – insect interactions 24

(ii) Ecological profile for Caronia multisepalea 26

Rehabilitation of breeding sites for Phyllodes imperialis smithersi 27

(iii) Atlas Ground Beetle 27

7. Feasibility for supporting development of a

Management / Recovery Plan for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth (Phyllodes imperialis smithersi) 28

8. References 29



9. Curriculum Vitae & Conservation Publications:

Donald Peter Andrew Sands 31

Sands References relating to conservation of insects 32

Appendix 1. Plant communities associated with Caronia multisepalea

34

Appendix 2. Plant nurseries with cultivation experience of

Carronia multisepalea 35

………………………………………….

1. Summary

This Review is prepared as a consultancy report for Sinclair Knight Merz. It is based on information and reports from NSW Roads and Maritime Services, relating to proposed road works for a highway upgrade near Wardell, NSW (as marked on maps provided). The reports relate to the impacts the roadworks may have an impact on populations and habitats of two endangered insects, the Southern Pink Underwing Moth (Phyllodes imperialis smithersi) and the Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle (Nurus atlas). Both insects are listed as Endangered by Federal and NSW Governments and their breeding habitats are plant communities classified as an endangered ecosystem (EPBC 1999 [amended 2011]), and defined as “Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia”.

The review focuses primarily on findings from surveys for two rare and threatened species of insects, the Southern Pink Underwing Moth (Phyllodes imperialis smithersi) and the Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle (Nurus atlas). More broadly the review discusses their conservation status, food plants and the ecosystems they occupy, as well as touching on other insect species of conservation concern. The latter include two butterflies, the “Laced” Fritillary (Argreus hyperbius inconstans; Endangered), the Richmond birdwing butterfly (Ornithoptera richmondia; conservation significance under the Byron Biodiversity Conservation Strategy) and the dragonfly, Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly (Petalura litorea; Endangered). The Review does not cover these or two other threatened invertebrates listed in the ‘Targeted Threatened Invertebrate Study’, the Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail (Thersites mitchellae) and Shorter Rainforest Ground Beetle (Nurus brevis), invertebrates currently listed as “threatened” under the appropriate State (NSW) and Federal environmental conservation acts.

The Review is based on documents provided by Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM). Any conclusions or recommendations and experience of this author (Sands) relating to the documents provided, are based on literature (References, e.g. Sands and New 2001) or following his discussions with informed scientists at the Queensland Museum, Brisbane (Dr GB Monteith re. Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle), the Australian Museum, Sydney (Dr D. Britton re. pink underwing moth in NSW), a Queensland plant ecologist (P. Grimshaw re. insect food plants and regional ecosystems). The author has not recently visited the targeted sites to assess habitats for the moth, their integrity, proximity to breeding sites or to water courses, or rainforest gullies near the areas for moth larvae where landscapes might act as corridors for nocturnal movement by the Moth.

SKM provided the Reviewer with electronic copies of the proposal (received 1/08/2013) and a CD (received 12/08/13) with documents: (i) ‘Environment Impact Statement’ (TRMS, Executive Summary, December 2012 [including evaluation of Impacts]), (ii) ‘Draft Threatened Invertebrates Management Plan’ (TRMS, August 2013) and (iii) Report, ‘Targeted Threatened Invertebrate Study’, prepared by Biodiversity Assessment (BAAM, 11 April 2012) and ‘Supplementary Targeted Threatened Invertebrate Study’ (BAAM 1 March 2013). The review provided for two, 2-hour teleconferences. The terms, conditions and dates of commencement for this Review and subsequent reviewers’ employment, were received on 8 August 2013 (from TECSIDE Personnel) and the agreement was returned to TECSIDE on 13 August 2013. This document was drafted by the reviewer on 22 August 2013 and a second. version was drafted on 2 September 2013.



2. Terms of Reference. The tasks to be addressed by the reviewer were summarised as follows (in letter of 1 August 2013 from Kim Collins):

1. Review background information to the project, including the Environmental Impact Assessment and associated Biodiversity Working Paper.

2. Consider feedback provided from DSEWPaC, DP&I, EPA and DPI on the relevant draft Management Plan.

3. Provide a desktop review of the revised Management Plan from a scientific perspective of the relevant species addressed by the Management Plan.

4. Attend a teleconference debriefing to provide feedback on the Management Plan to Roads and Maritime and the authors.

5. Prepare a written review statement on the Management Plan on letter headed paper. This review should, as a minimum, provide feedback on the following key questions:

a. Is the design of the monitoring project appropriate for the species?

b. Is the frequency and timing of monitoring adequate?

c. Is the Management Plan clear on what basis the monitoring locations would be selected?

d. Are appropriate goals being set?

e. Are the mitigation and management actions sufficiently targeted for the species?

f. Are the objectives, performance measures, corrective actions and thresholds for corrective actions in accordance with SMART principles?

g. Do the management measure objectives, performance indicators, thresholds and corrective actions link sufficiently to allow effective implementation?

h. Has the Management Plan provided sufficient evidence where the proposed mitigation has previously been effective?

i. Does the Management Plan describe and discuss contingencies, should the proposed measures be ineffective?

j. If we can’t demonstrate mitigation proposed will be effective, can we demonstrate that corrective actions will be effective?

k. Where there is no known research / evidence of the effectiveness of the specific measure proposed – have relevant alternative contingencies been committed to?

l. Have indirect impacts been addressed in the Management Plan, as relevant?

m. Are qualifications and experience of authors in subject field relevant?

3. Recommendations. Overall the topics and objectives of the Management Plan including mitigation strategies, have been addressed appropriately, with goals outlined clearly and impacts broadly addressed. The surveys for threatened species have been carried out effectively, as shown by the recovery of threatened species in the targeted area. Some finer details and adjustments that follow are recommended for consideration or inclusion in the Management Plan.

Mapping of Wardell Site. The surveyed site and other rainforest ecosystems along the Richmond River have been referred to in past times as the ‘Big Scrub’. To place emphasis on the importance of threatened species and ecosystems, in the Introduction it would be helpful to refer to the site as a remnant of the Big Scrub, indicate remaining intact areas, an those nearby protected (by tenure) as national parks.

• A Map to show areas proposed for clearing (‘before’ revision) and ‘after’ revision of boundaries would be helpful to readers to reflect commitment to avoiding damage to protected species



habitats. Show current locations of food plants for the two (Lepidoptera) species of conservation concern, Carronia multisepalea and Pararistolocia praevenosa.

Threatened Invertebrates Management Plan

• 2.2.1. Habitat requirements. Early in this section note the habitats occupied by the two targeted insect species (+ Richmond birdwing butterfly) are defined as threatened Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia, by Federal and NSW Governments.

• Pink Underwing Moth - name. Add “Southern” (to common name); update scientific name for subspecies (i.e. Phyllodes imperialis smithersi). Integrate in text: ‘larvae of the southern subspecies of moth are dependent on one food plant vine, Carronia multisepalea, found only in rainforests of north-eastern NSW and south-eastern Queensland” or similar….

• 2.3. Threats. Add “Fragmentation of habitats from disturbance may result in in-breeding depression”.

• Acknowledge State Agency for issue of ‘permits to collect’ (for protected insect surveys). • Conservation status update. Threatened species should be reviewed (by agency) every 3

years to take account of new information.

Appendix B, pp. 35-

• Add weeds to Threats. List local invasive weeds so that appropriate agencies and their control methods (e.g. herbicides) can be identified (e.g. green panic, molasses grass, lantana, camphor laurel) and included in lists of threats for the overall ecosystem.

Avoid using exotic grasses to re-enforce road edge embankments (common practice in Qld). Some (e.g. signal grass) are known to repel indigenous insects.

• Fruiting plants for adult moths. Plants suitable for adult food and species that fruit during flight seasons for the moths (e.g. November – March) include:

Lillypillies, Syzygium australe, S. smithii and other local species; Waterhousea floribunda, Ficus spp., including F. opposita, F. coronata.

• Translocation of moth eggs and larvae (from site of disturbance). Doubtful conservation value unless stages are present on targeted vines, and can be moved prior to clearing. Pupae likely to be present on nearby plants are at risk but are very difficult to locate.

• Translocation of vine Carronia multisepalea (no longer proposed). Doubtful value, doubtfully achievable. However, attempts might be made to propagate plants by using rhizomes removed from the path of disturbance.

• Plants to minimise edge effects. Soil-binding (& fire retardant) plants for embankments and vine to stabilise edge effects

(First check that Wardell, NSW is within the native range for each species)

Lomandra hystrix

L. longifolia (moist woodland form)

Rubus spp.: (e.g. R. parvifolius, R. moluccanus, R. risifolius, R. probus, R. moorei) (especially useful for steep embankment / moist slopes)

Carex apressa, other Carex spp.

Solanum spp.

Ficus coronata

Cordyline spp.

Vine: Pandorea jasminiodes



Control sites. Nearby sites of little value when comparing undisturbed habitats with disturbed areas unless positive results are obtained. More distant sites monitored are of value to indicate: (i) presence, number and persistence of breeding in nearby sites, (ii) seasonal patterns, and when stages are most likely to be present and (iii) whereabouts of meta-populations likely to influence colonising of disturbed and re-planted (with vine) areas. As very few vines and patches of vines are used even in undisturbed areas, negative results (no eggs or larvae seen) are likely to be frequent.

Pre-clearing surveys An indication of vines (Carronia multisepalea, Pararistolocia praevenosa) that have been removed or destroyed, and as a % of the overall food plants in the area would provide a useful record. The Reviewer is of the opinion that the site once disturbed is unlikely to support breeding by the moth until vegetation has matured and providing deep shade for at least 10 or more years

Rehabilitation of breeding sites for the moth. This off-site action can be seen as a positive ‘offset’ for disturbance of the threatened insect habitats, best done by working with local community groups (collaborating with NPWS).

In a similar project on the Richmond Birdwing butterfly (Ornithoptera richmondia) habitat rehabilitation was achieved more that 20 years by involving community groups and schools in propagating and planting food plants (mostly Pararistolchia praevenosa) for mass production by nurseries. This food plant vine could be easily included in any replating programmes to help the Richmond Birdwing recolonise. The Richmond Birdwing is currently locally threatened and at the southern edge of its range at Wardell.

Investigate opportunities to rehabilitate off-site habitats. for both moth and beetle, e.g. (i) private covenants, nature refuges and other tenures; (ii) buy-back of private land for add to local national parks (they do not need to share boundaries).

Re-vegetation. If continued for more than 2 years, local community groups can be invited to participate in a coordinated program. Local Landcare groups actively rehabilitate sites in northern NSW (e.g. ‘Rainforest Rescue’). Local members could be encouraged to take “ownership” of their efforts to ‘save the endangered moth’. Most Incorporated groups are ‘not-for-profit’ organisations but they always need financial assistance to support operating costs (e.g. herbicides) and other activities for rehabilitating bushlands.

Habitat rehabilitation for the Atlas Ground Beetle

Very little is known about the ecology of this beetle and it is therefore difficult to assess the potential for rehabilitation of sites to make them suitable for the beetle and its prey. Information form the surveys would indicate that burrow need some overhang, protection (e.g. overhanging log) or embankment and it is possible that these micro-habitats can be simulated in areas rehabilitated. Use of night vision glasses in surveys could contribute to information about nocturnal activity away from burrows, prey, ground shelters and any particular plants used for making burrows (other than While Cedar).

Security for rehabilitation sites. Signage for sites (+ protected species) is desirable but security needs to be considered. The tenure needs clarification so that protection can be seen as a long term commitment. The moth has potential $$ value for trade (especially for overseas collectors of specimens) but ‘collecting’ is not known to be a threat at present.

Support for ‘Feasibility Study to develop a Recovery Plan’ Recommend support be provided to an appropriate nursery for propagation studies on Carronia multisepalea (e.g. Dorrigo Environment Watch Inc.) and develp methods to propagate the vine.

Community workshops. Community workshops can also be included in any local program and by providing support funds. A community workshop on the Southern Pink Underwing Moth was run for Barung Landcare (May 2008) at Maleny (Mary Cairncross Scenic Reserve; cost: ca $2,000. The venue was provided by Council. Community participation was encouraged using the Richmond Birdwing Butterfly Conservation program.



Expert’s Contact Details and Plant Nurseries

(i) Southern Pink Underwing Moth. Very few if any entomologists with experience in the moth are known to live in the region. NSWPWS Rangers based at Alstonville (e.g. Bob Moffatt) were previously (1990s) experienced in identifying threatened insects and their food plants but interests by current staff are not known. Interest in conservation of the moth has come from Byron Bay NSWPWS but knowledge of insects is limited.

Clearly the surveyor Lindsay Popple has gained a lot of experience and expertise with the moth and beetle, and their specific habitats near Wardell.

Others -

• Dr David Britton, Australian Museum, College St., Sydney. Others may have casual experience in New South Wales. • For moth in the Bellinger Valley, I recommend Trevor and Carol Deane (address below), have firsthand experience with the Southern Pink Underwing Moth and its food plant, mostly on Bellinger Island). • Botanists (e.g. Alex Floyd, John Rigley) may help with cultivation and distribution of moth food plant, the vine Carronia multisepalea. • Members of Community Group. Dorrigo Environment Watch Inc., PO Box 284, Dorrigo, NSW. 2453. (Trevor and Carol Deane

(ii) Atlas Ground Beetle. Reviewer only knows of the first-hand experience with the beetle of Dr Geoff Monteith, Honorary entomologist, Queensland Museum (pr. email [email protected]). Taxonomic and distribution information is available on the website Atlas of Living Australia. This is a key point of reference for the moth.

Lighting. Lights and their wattage to be minimised; lights mounted as low as possible, and limited where possible to road & signage illumination. Avoid mercury vapour lights; sodium vapour may need evaluation (effects on target species not known).

• Avoid penetration by lights into forest or water courses to avoid disruption of flight behaviour, flight paths, host and mate-finding by the moths.

• No disturbance to southern (and northern ssp.) pink underwing moth behaviour (flight, feeding, avoidance) has been seen (using night vision glasses) at localities in Queensland when lights are 500 m or further from habitat. It is not possible to predict how longer-term exposure to lights will influence moth behaviour without experiments or observations. Sometimes insects will ‘condition’ themselves to light disturbance.

• Studies on longer-term exposure light requires more research; this may justify use of night vision glasses for a monitoring program.

Other edge effects.

• Dust management in construction and diesel exhausts may have an impact on the larvae of the moth

• Monitoring of dust settlement on foliage may provide an indication of impacts on larvae feeding.

• The recommendation that disturbance should not occur within 500m of breeding sites appears impractical. Therefore an attempt at no disturbance within 100 m of breeding sites appears more feasible.

mailto:[email protected]



Methods for Trapping and Monitoring


• Monitoring eggs and larvae for numbers and distribution are appropriate methods for determining presence or absence, health of habitat, season and suitability of plant phenotype when stages are present.

• Correct identification of eggs and moth larvae requires experienced personnel. Similar common moth species (e.g. Eudocima fullonia) utilise the same food plant as used by P. imperialis smithersi.

• Monitoring adults with lights is likely to be of little value for highly mobile moths; they are rarely seen unless feeding. Lights occasionally attract moths but traps have proven (in SE Qld) to be ineffective and may disrupt normal flight behaviour of the target species.

• Lights and light traps (in the forest) may have unwanted impacts on non-target species and disturb the behaviour of other species.

• Fruit baited (e.g. with over-ripe bananas) traps can useful for determining presence/absence of pink underwing moths, especially if mounted in-flight paths.

• Cameras are unlikely to distinguish differences between many species of large night-flying moths (e.g. large silk moths) that occur in the area.

• Night vision glasses are useful research tools for observing host plant selection by female moths, feeding by adults (e.g. on hanging fruit) and flight behaviour. Doubtful value for this – essentially a monitoring project

Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle

• Expert with most experience: Dr Geoff Monteith (retired Hon. Scientist) Queensland Museum. [email [email protected]]

• Monitoring: Correctly identifying burrows made by the Atlas Beetle would appear to be the best method.

• Traps. Pitfall traps may be useful for determining presence/absence of beetles but the method can also be considered destructive, even when beetles are released, depending on their densities per area of habitat.

• Experienced surveyors are needed to identify burrows and avoid misidentifying burrows of other related beetles in an area.

• Flight? If the beetle is nocturnal or it can fly, night vision glasses may be useful for monitoring beetles when they leave their burrows.

• Off site monitoring of burrows and at control sites need first to establish the identity of this species. Persistence of the beetle after nearby disturbance may be of value in assessing impacts on beetles populations.

• Light interference. Comments on possible effects of lights on the moth’s behaviour may apply to beetle behaviour if it can fly.

4. Review of Reports

(1.1) Background and Purpose. The Report provides the objectives and scope of surveys, the names of investigators, the methods used and dates of two Surveys (6-10 February 2012, 13-16 March 2013) and a Supplementary Survey (11-15 February 2013). The objectives are appropriate and the dates for surveys coincided with the times of appearance of the immature stages of the Southern Pink Underwing Moth (to confirm its identity by photographs) and collection of specimens (e.g. to confirm identity of the Atlas Ground Beetle). The Report and Supplement did not indicate if the areas, or parts of areas surveyed, would be classified as ‘lowland subtropical rainforests’, plant communities protected under the EPBC Act.

(1.2) Site Descriptions. The landscapes and ecosystems targeted for surveys are broadly described, including swamp and mangrove forests, swamp sclerophyll and grasslands, with examples of eucalypts and banksias occurring in woodlands, and basaltic hills with small pockets of rainforest, some with exotic Camphor Laurel. Additional information defining the ‘regional ecosystems’ being surveyed for moth stages and its food plant and occupied by the beetle are desirable for this report. In addition, the occurrence of these ecosystems and the food plant outside of the study area would provide valuable information for assessing the likelihood of other sites nearby being occupied by the insects.



Two maps were provided, Figure 1-1 provided aerial views of the Study Area and Survey Locations with individual sites numbered and Figure 3-2 provided an enlarged map where the threatened moth and beetle were found, the food plant (Carronia multisepalea) for the moth, as well as the very few plants of (Pararistolochia praevenosa), food plant for the Richmond Birdwing butterfly,. One map (Figure 3-2) showed the location of insects and plants within, on, or just outside, the Study Area Boundaries and it also illustrated how moth stages were located on only one portion of the area occupied by the food plant (C. multisepalea), probably indicating the habitat, food plant phenotype, or shading were not suitable as a breeding site. The reviewer noted that “Fig 3-1” (referred to on pp. 4,7 & 8 of text) may have been an incorrect figure reference for Fig. 1-1.

Excellent images were provided for the threatened species located during the surveys as well as other species of conservation concern and interest. All are relevant by providing indicators for the integrity of the ecosystems and species they are supporting.

Is the area of habitat remaining to be disturbed (after variation in boundaries) 2.4 ha? Can it be described as an area of Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia (as under the EPBC Act)?

Survey Reports

Targeted Threatened Invertebrate Study, by Popple, L., Chambers, J and Weber, L (11/04/2012)

Summary. The aims, methods used and seasonal timing of the studies were appropriately designed and implemented, confirming that the field work was effective for locating the two target threatened species at the Study site where the moth was breeding on its known food plants, and the moth and beetle were associated with particular plant communities known to be habitats. The surveys achieved the objectives and have added valuable information to the known distribution and breeding sites of two threatened species, the Southern Pink Underwing Moth (Phyllodes imperialis smithersi) and the Atlas Ground Beetle (Nurus atlas). From these findings the potential impacts from roadwork disturbance can be extrapolated from the presence of habitats and breeding by the targeted threatened insects, based on location of the food plants and ecosystems occupied. The sightings of an adult Richmond Birdwing Butterfly (Ornithoptera richmondia) near Wardell, a species also of conservation concern, and rediscovery of its local rare food plant vine (Pararistolochia praevenosa) at the Study Sites, provides renewed evidence for this rare butterfly near the southern edge of its range where it has not been seen since about 1994 (Sands 2008).

The Report was prepared by environmental specialists who hold appropriate qualifications (e.g. two authors hold PhD degrees). Dr Lindsay Popple, who took the lead with field surveys, is known to have extensive ecological and taxonomic experience with several insect groups (e.g. cicadas). Minor recommendations are made by the reviewer in the following sections.

Species Profile. Southern Pink Underwing Moth (Phyllodes imperialis smithersi Sands, Lepidoptera: Erebidae).

(Management Plan, August 2013, Appendix B, pp. 35-40).

Author([s] of the Profile provided brief summaries for the moth under the headings below, followed by Reviewer’s comments. The Report is accompanied by impressive and relevant images, for low growth of the food plant Carronia multisepalea, larvae of stages of the Southern Pink Underwing moth and a larva of a similar (“look-alike”) moth, Eudocima fullonia, for comparison; a species of no conservation significance that has sometimes been confused with the threatened species.

Description. Reviewer: Brief but adequate. Dot point 2 might be improved by emphasising the moth breeds in heavily shaded areas in “old Growth Rainforests” (perhaps give botanical types), where the larvae feed only on soft leaves of the food plant, and on low growth (< 2m) of shoots, or new growth arising from rhizomes.



Adults of the Southern Pink Underwing Moth do not initiate damage to fruit but do feed on juices of over-ripe fruit, or fruit damaged by other means. This is in contrast to the damage caused by large moths in the genus Eudocima spp. (e.g. E. fullonia) which have a specialised proboscis modified for piercing fruit; these piercing species can be regarded as pests when abundant in the tropics, and less commonly in far northern NSW. It is important that the threatened species, the Southern Pink Underwing Moth is not thought to be a “fruit piercing moth”, as sometimes mistakenly inferred by uninformed authors.

Similar Species. Reviewer: Appropriate, but the Author may not know the extent of variation in colour of larvae of the common species, Eudocima fullonia. Variation in colour needs to be considered when identifying larvae to species, for example, young larvae of E. fullonia can appear to laymen very similar to those of P. i. smithersi but its larger larvae never have the spectacular “eye patches” and “teeth” markings, characteristic of the Southern Pink Underwing Moth.

Legislative Status. Reviewer: appropriate reference provided. Worth noting that Queensland has not listed the moth as threatened, with reasons obscure.

Distribution. Reviewer: The map provided is adequate. The southern limit of the moth is known to be Dorrigo and Bellingen and altitudinal limit as about 600 m (NSW/Qld Border Ranges.

Habitat. Rainforest habitat is briefly mentioned but brief floristic definitions of habitat requirements (Regional Ecosystem) would be useful for documenting impacts of roadworks and other ecological studies. Upfront in this section the area (and proportion) of moth breeding habitat proposed for clearing of rainforest vegetation (?2.4 ha) should be compared with the area to be retained.

Threats. Reviewer: Invasive grasses (e.g. green panic, molasses grass) will be serious threats in the shorter term and several weeds including lantana and camphor laurel will invade all disturbed areas as longer-term threats. I recommend dot point 3 expand to name some of these weeds

A major threat could result by defoliation and increased light affecting nearby or adjacent corridors used for adult dispersal, particularly any heavily wooded water courses. Can the tenure and management of these water courses be secured against disturbance and weed invasions? Due to its spectacular appearance the newly-named sub-species (ssp. smithersi) has recently become an iconic species, and it may be further threatened by over-collecting of specimens by Australian and International collectors.

Key management Requirements. Reviewer: The management requirements are adequately addressed here and elsewhere in the documents. Translocation of immature stages (dot points) for the site to be disturbed is unlikely to benefit the overall conservation of the species but the method could be seen as a positive by ‘uninformed’ members of the community who may compare the action with vertebrate translocations. Heavily shaded plants with ample foliage (and correct phonological expression) may support subsequent development but they cannot always be placed at sites free of natural enemies that will use the translocated larvae as prey (a common factor that regulates breeding sites). Trained surveyors might be on the lookout for natural enemies and make a contribution to the knowledge of natural population-regulating factors for the moth (Reviewer would be interested in these data).

Clearing of vegetation containing Carronia multisepalea used as food plant and its habitat by the moth is to be avoided. Efforts have been made to re-route the roadworks to avoid damage to the fragile ecosystem used as habitat by the threatened species. Was resumption of farmlands an option to relocate the roadworks to the east and can any nearby fragments of habitat be secured (or purchased) for national parks, or permanently-protected and managed reserves?

Bibliography: Reviewer: Federal listing of the moth resulted from a publication by Clark GM and Spier-Ashcroft F (2003), who outlined the conservation concerns, details of micro-habitats, food plants and other materials of interest, data that resulted from a CSIRO project investigating the moth and the related E. fullonia. This reference should be used in this and all future reports. The reference to Herbison-Evans et al. (2004) is inappropriate for reference here and it contains somewhat misleading information.



Supplementary Survey for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth (11-15 February 2013), by Lindsay Popple.

Important new information resulted from this survey and showed that the Southern Pink Underwing Moth and the Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle both occur in and beyond the proposed developmental footprint of Sections10 and 11. These data included (i) additional habitat for Phyllodes imperialis smithersi as confirmed by presence of larvae, (ii) potential habitat for the moth where the host plant was present without moth stages, and (iii) plant communities assessed as potential habitat for the moth (with presence of adult fruit trees) in absence of the larval food plant, and (iv) scores for a habitat condition assessment as part of a pre-clearing survey.

Collection of specimens. During the surveys for two species of protected insect species the collection of specimens is necessary to establish without doubt the identity of the species. Nowadays photographs can be taken without difficulties in darkened rainforest and the quality of images is often adequate to establishing the identity of a threatened species, for example the advanced stages (instars 3-5) of larvae of the Pink Underwing moth, provided the images are shown to a specialist (e.g. Dr David Britton, curator at the Australian Museum Sydney). Specimens of most carabid beetles including the Atlas Ground Beetle, cannot be identified with certainty from images. Therefore specimens are needed for referral to an expert. In these surveys specimens of the targeted threatened species were collected under a permit issued by the appropriate State and/or Federal agencies.

A recommendation to authors. it is appropriate to acknowledge taxonomist(s) (+ museum / agency) that identified specimens to species (e.g using images of moth, specimens of beetle) and to acknowledge any agencies that issued ‘permits to collect’.

Results of surveys

The location of 45 larvae (range of instars) and 9 eggs of Phyllodes imperialis smithersi on its host vine (C. multisepalea) indicates more than one gravid female had oviposited over a period of several weeks in the single block with larvae present (Lot 23), based on estimates for fecundity of moths previously held in captivity. A further record of the Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle 750 m from the previous record and additional records of the host plants (Pararistolochia praevenosa) for the Richmond birdwing butterfly with sightings of an adult butterfly, indicate the overall areas of rainforest surveyed close to Wardell, sustains breeding colonies of several species of insects of conservation significance.

Methods are needed to identify the specific heavily shaded habitats (in lowland subtropical rainforest), to identify and locate the moth’s specific food plant requirements (rainforest vine Carronia multisepalea), and recognise the phenotypic expression of growth (only young, soft, rapidly-growing and apical foliage) on plants in heavily areas. The shaded soft apical growth on vines is used by moth larvae, and these expressions have proven to be effective when locating various stages of larvae of the moth. The maps (Fig. 3-2) revealed how many moth larvae and all food plant vines were in, or just outside of the study boundaries. Many moth larvae located and the pink underwing moth larvae were distinguished from those of a related and common moth, the fruit piercing moth, Eudocima fullonia (images confirm the identities in the Report). In the past, larvae of this and related common moths have been mis-identified as larvae of the pink underwing moth. Whereas larvae of the pink underwing moth are only found in heavily shaded areas, larvae of the common fruit moths will occur in shaded areas as well as more exposed situations. The authors of the Report distinguished the two species which have caused confusion in determinations amongst other experts in the past. They are to be commended for distinguishing the larvae of the threatened species from a common species of no conservation concern.



Pupae and adult moths were not reported during surveys but the sites surveyed and observed supporting the larvae the moth were confirmed suitable for supporting complete development of the immature stages. Eggs of the Pink Underwing Moth are difficult to distinguish from eggs of a common fruit piercing moth (Eudocima fullonia) and eggs of both species are found in similar situations attached beneath leaves. Only after emergence and development to 2nd and 3rd instars, can larvae of the two species be readily distinguished, as shown by figures (Photos 5-7) in the Report. Pupae of the moth were not located but the cryptically-selected sites for larvae intending to pupate (folded living leaves, loose cocoons stitched with silk) are very rarely located and would have taken many more hours of searching. Moreover, pupae may not have been present at the same time of the year when young larvae were observed, and the loose cocoons are extremely difficult to locate.

The surveying personnel are to be complemented for their efforts and successes in finding such rare species and previously unknown breeding sites for the moth. As recommended elsewhere in this Review, the area may prove to be extremely important as an intact remnant of the original ‘Big Scrub’ rainforests and there is a priority need to ensure the tenure and ecosystems on such environmentally-valuable land is secured by State or Commonwealth as a protected, conservation reserve.

Species Profile. Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle [Nurus atlas (Castelnau), Coleoptera: Carabidae]

Background. The identity of this beetle has been established for many years (Castelnau 1867) but very little information on the distribution, biology or ecology of this beetle has been available until recently (GB Monteith pers. comm., L. Popple in this Project). The beetle was named at a time when large areas of the ‘big scrub’, the habitat for the beetle in north-eastern NSW, remained intact. Description, distribution and an illustration of this beetle can be found on the website of “Atlas of Living Australia”. The beetle is shown to occur at widely-separated sites in eastern Australia, in central and northern NSW and at one in far northern Queensland. The species is said to be “Endangered” and threats are said to be “Risks of collection (of specimens) and disturbance” (Atlas of Living Australia). The lack of ecological information on the ecology of this beetle makes the tasks of threat abatement and recovery for the species very difficult.

Methods. The Reviewer can add little useful information to recommendations or additional survey methods. The contributions made to date by authors of the surveys indicate the need for supporting future research on the beetle, and development of a recovery plan for the beetle – an essential outcome and internationally-recognised step (and in NSW) following from the listing of threatened species.

Methods described for searching for adults and burrows of the beetle have proven to be effective, and the resulting recovery of an adult beetle of the target species, in a locality not previously known, is an indication of effectiveness of implementation of the methods used. The photographs of the beetle are diagnostic and the identity of a specimen was confirmed by an expert based at the Queensland Museum. Location of the burrow and identity of plant with roots used for shelters as well as soil types may be important for defining type of habitat. The photographs of slope and other ecological information could be diagnostic for the beetle’s habitat and recovery of a specimen indicates the surveys have been most effective. The dates selected for surveys, the methods of searching and times spent searching added to effective location of this species on the survey site.

Is the beetle nocturnal? The reviewer would be interested to know if the photograph of the living adult was taken during daylight hours or at night; information useful to guide future surveys, whether by day or at night, for this extremely rare beetle. In view of the paucity of biological and ecological information available for the Atlas Ground beetle, those conducting the surveys are to be congratulated for finding adults and burrows, and to making a contribution to the ecological knowledge and the distribution of this endangered species.



5. Threatened Invertebrates Management Plan

The Monitoring Programme (7)

Objectives: To provide reliable information for management of the Southern Pink Underwing Moth and Atlas Ground Beetle at the study sites, by monitoring invertebrate habitats, locations of threatened insect populations and rehabilitation sites adjacent to the alignment, and to document effectiveness of mitigation measures.

Schedule: Program to be conducted for three years post construction subject and to revision if new locations are found after the final survey.

Reviewers comments: All objectives and the schedule as interpreted above are appropriate. Monitoring might be extended by up to 500m from the edge of disturbance, to assess (and measure) the selection of habitats by the species and tolerance of their populations to edge effects disturbances.

Comments in sections and topics below are provided against dot points.

Southern Pink Underwing Moth (7.2)

Habitat condition assessment (7.2.1).

• The criteria and scores are appropriate and will provide positive indicators of habitat condition • Recommendations: disturbance should not occur within 500m of breeding sites • Weed management needs to be maintained indefinitely.

Moth populations (7.2.2).

• Methods to monitor immature moth stages and methods for locating the beetles are appropriate and use of a positive control site will add to information on the effectiveness of rehabilitation efforts

Moth activity at lights (7.2.3)

• Lights attract attention and vandalism by public; • Lights disrupt flight behaviour of target moth, and activity of the target and non-target

nocturnal organisms. • Any lights are likely to disrupt normal adult moth activity and are not particularly attractive to

species of Phyllodes moths. • Cameras are available to monitor nocturnal animals but none would provide certainty of

identity for the target moth (at least 15 large non-target moth species occur in the area) • Fruit baited traps can be designed and used effectively for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth.

Trapped moths can be marked, released & recaptured to indicate habitat use and meaningful population estimates.

• Eggs and larvae are always the best means of monitoring local numbers as the stages are not mobile and numbers observed are independent of non-breeding ‘visitors’

Host plant (Carronia multisepalea) populations (7.2.4)

(1) Propagules may be difficult to strike from cuttings – which sex of plant will be used? Good luck with developing effective methods for propagation – they are needed for a future ‘recovery plan’.

(2) Methods for monitoring growth seem reasonable but what about watering regimes? (3) Growth rates and use by herbivores is valuable information for monitoring, 6-month intervals

useful but choose season and month (4) Doubtful result. Flowering (and seed production) on propagules would be unlikely to occur

within 5 years unless sites are well-sunlit, and if so, unsuitable for use by moth as food plant. Add to parameters “health/mortality” of propagules

(5) Annual schedules and monitoring frequency. Good parameters proposed. (6) Is tissue culture for production of vine propagules feasible or has it been considered?



Performance indicators (7.2.5)

• Control sites need to extend >50 m from construction corridor to avoid light interference and false negatives

• Welcome mention of property acquisition – what category will the tenure become, NPs?

Offset and revegetation sites (7.2.6)

• Effectiveness will depend on distance from disturbance (light, air movement etc) • Large Lepidoptera (Moths, birdwings) are very sensitive to air movements of > 5 km/h and

their flight behaviour (from lights and air movement) need to be considered.

Atlas rainforest Ground Beetle (7.3)

Habitat condition assessment. Criteria used for finding habitats for the moth can be applied equally to the beetle. Localised adjustments to searches can be made by focus on the burrowing sites as habitats which differ from plant use by moths.

Monitoring beetle populations (7.3.1)

• Sites monitored can be the same (as per BAAM methods) as for the moth with adjustments for monitoring known “micro-habitats” (including burrows and rock shelters).

• Off-site monitoring may provide an indication for (i) presence of other individuals, (ii) information regarding behaviour and beetle prey, and (iii) how rehabilitation of micro-habitats could be undertaken

• Recommend nocturnal monitoring be included in the monitoring schedules

Performance indicators (7.3.2)

• Beetles along the proposed corridor are unlikely to be observed unless night observations are conducted, due to probable nocturnal foraging behaviour

• Such surveys are unlikely to indicate real impacts of construction activities • Indicators are needed to predict how many beetle borrows are likely to occur in the area to be

disturbed, based on known micro-habitats for the beetle • Populations changes are difficult to determine for any insects and may not be a useful

indicator of insect “health”. Presence/absence and burrows being used might be useful monitoring parameters.

Rehabilitation of areas and host plants (7.4).

Food for adult Moths. Planting indigenous figs and other fruit bearing species will provide food for both sexes of adults. as a long term strategy this will help provide fruit as food for other moths and wildlife. Depending on species of Ficus, it is likely that local production of fruit would not be adequate as an adult source in the shorter term (Ficus coronata may be the most rapid species to produce fruit. Ficus watkinsiana is known to produce fruit attractive to the moth when damaged)

Performance measures and corrective actions (7.5)

Add to Corrective Action 1…, “Evidence of a decline in numbers of eggs and larvae…”, to reflect changes occurring to the suitability of the breeding site whereas adult sightings or trapped may relate only to individuals “passing through”..

Corrective Action 2. “options to improve habitat condition and connectivity” This objective might better be identified soon so that a cost/benefit prediction against effectiveness can be made. The only positive action is likely to be to – resume land for habitat restoration/enrichment and to ensure it has indefinite protected tenure.

Second, a species can be considered a “rehabilitated species”, either from successful recovery actions or from new information that leads to down-listing from the “threatened” categories.

Recommend: a Corrective Action 3 be included to “be informed the conservation status of the threatened species by agencies every 2 years”, to ensure that rehabilitation efforts and on-going management expenses are justified.



Evaluation, project review and reporting (7.6)

Annual reports are essential. What will be the response if there are recommended activities not forecast during the planning stage?

Responsibility (7.6.1)

Clear directions for evaluations

Timing (7.6.2)

Appropriate. If new ecological information becomes available it should be referred to appropriate agencies or their staff (e.g. Museum staff, and as outlined 7.6.3).

Adaptive Management (7.6.3)

Reviewer: The criteria (e.g. 75% survival of tube stocks) would appear unreasonably optimistic taking into account the little information on propagation currently available. Has anyone had recent success in propagation of this vine?

Reviewer’s Comments:

• Provision for variation in monitoring & assessments is needed as changes are recognised during implementation, or alternatives proposed if methods prove to be ineffective

• Sites selected need to take into consideration predatory ants • Methods to propagate need to be developed (for male and female vines) • Watering regimes are likely to be important (e.g. minimum of once per week in drought

periods) • Young plants grow very slowly in shaded areas • Edge effects likely to be considerable • Weeds likely are mostly exotic grasses, camphor laurel and lantana. Need to consider control

methods (removal/slash/herbicides/ early on. • It is unlikely that (i) moths will start using the planted vines within 5 years after planting and (ii)

that “ decreases in abundance* of threatened invertebrate populations and likely reasons…” can be measured, or the reasons given, unless the moth discontinues using the undisturbed section of the site. Presence/absence of breeding by the moth on particular plants is the key cue for monitoring

• Seasonal & parasitoid-induced fluctuations normally make counts and estimates for most insect numbers very difficult or impossible, especially for mobile species such as the Southern Pink Underwing Moths with meta-population structures.

Summary table and implementation schedule of management plan (Table 8-1).

Reviewer: This appears as a 3-year operational plan, can the planned duration for monitoring and surveys be indicated?

Draft Threatened Invertebrates Management Plan - Agency Comments

(W2B)

Reviewer’s comments (relate to Version R01 of the Plan and Response. Comments are by item No. and RO1 numbers). It is noted that the Responses relate to an up-dated plan. Generally the Agency comments appear to be reasonable and only relevant comments are added below:

3. - considers all breeding sites with Caronia multisepalea (and Pararistolochia praevenosa) would be classifiable as Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia.



4. - doubts if translocation of immature stages will contribute towards local conservation of the moth.

5. - would encourage propagation attempts for C. multisepalea as part of (suggested) rainforest rehabilitation. Bear in mind that there are male and female vines that both need propagating.

6. See 4 above 7. Propose as additional need to predict the position of moth flight corridors to see if they will be

impacted by the roadworks or presence of the carriageway. 8. Light is known to disrupt behaviour of moths (and carabid beetles) over considerable

distances. Lights should be minimised near the habitats and potential watercourse corridors. The Southern Pink Underwing Moth is weakly attracted to light but its ovipositional and mating behaviour is likely to be disrupted.

9. A good proposal. 10. How about supporting development of a Recovery Plan for the moth by an incorporated

community group

101 - 104. No comment needed

EPA Comments (WB2)

The Reviewer considered the comments, up-dates and responses, with little further to add. Most EPA concerns were considered appropriate but have been alleviated by changes in the boundaries as shown in Responses. Monitoring should take into account the ‘meta-population’ of the moth where each patch of food plant used as a breeding site may either be utilised, or avoided, year to year, or season to season. As mentioned in the notes, large and sub-migratory Lepidoptera such as the Pink Underwing Moth are prone to this movement between sites to avoid in-breeding depression, well known for the Richmond Birdwing Butterfly.

Reviewer’s responses according to Section:

3.3.1 The low probability for impacts due to refinement of design applies here to Carronia multisepalea. Does the same apply to the vine Pararistolochia praevenosa if it is present? It is a food plant for the locally threatened Richmond Birdwing butterfly. Apart from being diurnal and using a different food plant, the ecological interactions of the two insects – a moth and a butterfly, are similar as are the habitats.

4.2.5 The moths are unlikely to utilise any plants translocated within the time frame for monitoring unless mature plants survive and produce suckering growth or low shoots suitable for attracting oviposition. Propagation, planting and translocating vines and maintaining them, is an exercise for the “long haul” and plans need to be made for long-term watering, management and protection. It is more important to consider the security and tenure of the receiving (planted vines) land and adjoining habitats, to ensure all local habitats for moth and food plant are zoned for indefinitely protection (e.g. Nature Refuges, proper;y managed national parks.

6. Reviewers Dossiers.

An overview of ecosystems and insect habitats

(i) Southern Pink Underwing Moth



The region proposed for road works contains remnants of natural ecosystems described and mapped in documents provided for review. The region has a subtropical climate with a moderate to high coastal rainfall that declines progressively towards the west to base of the Main Divide. To the south, lowland subtropical rainforests once fringed the Clarence River and its tributaries, with its rich alluvial soil areas extended northwards and forming flood plains surrounding the Richmond River. The natural ecosystems support a very high diversity of plants, animals and their habitats, with many species dependent on undisturbed plant communities surrounding intact water bodies and edging water courses. This ecosystem, earlier referred to as the ‘Big Scrub’, once extended over 75,000 hectares, but since the 1840s this rainforest area has been extensively cleared, leaving only remnants. Natural wetlands have been equally disturbed by clearing, draining and grazing, resulting in losses of most native grasslands and sedge lands, and displacement of native vegetation by exotic pasture grasses and weeds. In the 1900s the lowland floodplain topography rendered much of the area amenable to clearing following widespread timber extraction (predominantly for the Australian red cedar, Toona australis). By the early 1990s, only 556 hectares (approximately) of rainforest remained (Lott and Duggan 1993), with all of it seriously fragmented. By the end of the nineteenth century, many rainforest plants and communities with associated indigenous animals, vertebrates and invertebrates, had become displaced, extirpated or extinct, the destruction promoted by feral animals and introduced weeds, including camphor laurel and lantana. The remnants of predominantly subtropical lowland rainforest in now said to be protected (Federal EPBC Act).

Since the late 1990s, the integrity of the subtropical rainforests and wetlands has suffered from clearing, drainage and the displacement of native flora by exotic weeds. Earthworks, roadworks, blue metal extraction, clearing for powerlines and deliberately-lit fires (particularly increased frequency, scale, season), added to impacts on invertebrate biodiversity, particularly in the remnant riparian zones and wetlands. Diversified cropping, including subtropical fruit, avocado and macadamia nuts, have recently increased pressures on the health of stream flows, and from chemical and bacterial pollution extending from urbanization.

Wildlife endemicity of the region. The remnant rainforest patches are widely recognized as important for sustaining biodiversity, and they support significant numbers of rare and threatened plants and small animals. The regional ecosystems targeted during the surveys are known to be shared by a range of threatened vertebrate animals and birds (e.g. Coxen’s Fig Parrot) and threatened insects (e.g. Pink Underwing Moth), animals that occupy ecosystems currently recognized as Endangered by Federal and State Agencies. These habitats for threatened species, particularly rain forested areas, are often small in area but they continue to be disturbed by invasions by feral animals and subtropical weeds, particularly wild pigs and dogs, lantana, exotic grasses, and edge effects.

The subtropical invertebrates of eastern Australia are unique and as much so as those of the northern Wet Tropics. Losses of patches of subtropical habitats have had a serious impact on the diversity of invertebrates as they have “no-where to go” and do not have the mobility to escape from habitats when they are disturbed. Many locally endemic insects, some referred to in these reports, have declined in abundance and become extremely rare, others are recognised as threatened (with extinction) or have become extinct. Most invertebrates (making up 99% of animals), many species now considered threatened, have co-evolved with particular plant species or other animals and are adapted to one or few ecosystem types. The majority of invertebrates have evolved as part of the Australian ecosystems over much longer periods than vertebrates, especially those with important interactions (e.g. specific pollinators, dung beetles, dragonflies) with other animals and plants.



Threatened species. Australian threatened phytophagous insects are often restricted to feed on particular plants in specific plant communities, where climate is compatible with specific biological processes including mate-finding, reproduction and immature development. In this category are species surveyed including the Southern Pink Underwing Moth (Phyllodes imperialis smithersi), the Australian (= “Laced”) Fritillary (Argyreus hyperbius inconstans), and the Richmond Birdwing butterfly (Ornithoptera richmondia). Not uncommonly, specific densities of one species of plant, with a particular phenotypic expression, are essential for survival. Such insects usually occur only where adapted to ecosystems with specific “climatic envelopes” where they are susceptible to extirpations and extinctions from: (i) loss or disturbance of specific habitat, (ii) lack of corridors enabling escape and re-colonisation, (iii) lack of mobility or opportunity when disturbed, (iv) seasonal susceptibility of quiescent stages to disturbance, and (v) isolation of colonies from loss of connectivity leading to in-breeding depression. Food plants may survive disturbance but their phenotypic expression, age structure and exposure to light may change and also make them unsuitable as food plants. The threatened insects surveyed in this study are susceptible to one or more of these threats. In relation to the Australian Fritillary, It is likely that fragmentation of habitats, severance of flight corridors and in-breeding may have been one of the major causes of declines in distribution and extirpations that have led to it being now recognised as a seriously endangered butterfly.

In addition to threatened status of the Southern Pink Underwing Moth (Phyllodes imperialis smithersi), the Richmond Birdwing butterfly (Ornithoptera richmondia) both are considered by the community and agencies as ‘iconic species’, with spectacular appearances carrying the message of ‘conservation needs’ for invertebrates and when selecting threatened species for listing by agencies (Clark GM and Spier-Ashcroft F, 2003).



Biology and population structure

Little is known about population structure of the Southern Pink Underwing Moth, particularly in NSW, but from recent studies on the Blackall Ranges, Queensland, meta-populations of the breeding sites are in place, made up of mosaics of heavily shaded old growth rainforest plant communities containing the food plant for larvae, Carronia multisepalea. The moth has been seen (using night vision glasses) to move from one individual plant to another when selecting plants for oviposition, only utilising the suitable shaded foliage on low shoots or from root suckers, and avoiding the older stems and higher (>2m) parts of the host vine that ascend into the canopy. Meta-populations composed of patches of suitable food plants and immature stages of the moth are distributed over large areas and their distribution may be important in sustaining survival in the region. The migratory behaviour between widely-spaced plants selected for egg deposition, is likely to be a strategy used to avoid in-breeding (unpublished), similar to the Richmond Birdwing butterfly where in-breeding depression is well known to occur when populations become fragmented and genetically isolated (Orr 1994). The moths are thought to have cryptic mating cues and specific mating sites but they have not been observed mating in the wild. For movement between habitats and breeding sites moths have been seen (using night glasses) moving through moist rainforest gullies, surrounding flowing streams. This is likely to be the only way movement between breeding sites, covering large areas in search of food plants, can occur without heavy losses to predation. Adults of the southern pink underwing moth are very rarely seen but on occasions they have been observed feeding on damaged or over-ripe fruit of various types in forests and occasionally in orchards. In the wild, adults have been observed feeding on soft, over-ripe fruit of wild figs, lillipillies, and one or two other native fruit. They do not damage fruit, or feed on fallen fruit, but will feed on the juices after some damage has already been done to ripe fruit by other insects or birds.

Adult moths are not readily attracted to light and light traps have not proven to be successful for trapping these moths. Light traps targeting this moth are therefore not reliable for identifying habitats, adult abundance or flight corridors and the effects of light (when using night vision glasses) appear to disrupt flight and moths will often turn away from light sources. Light traps also frequently attract unwanted attention from passers by and have suffered from vandals. For monitoring presence and absence, both sexes of adult moths can be collected from fruit-baited traps. However, fruit-baited traps also attract many non-target species and the method is not encouraged unless the trap contents can be attended to on a daily basis.

In Queensland, very few rainforest sites with the vine C. multisepalea have been found to carry populations of larvae of the moth and there is strong evidence for “meta-populations” where different patches of vines are used each season. The nocturnal feeding of adult Southern Pink Underwing Moth (only on damaged/over-ripe fruit) and flight between breeding habitats occurs at similar times to more abundant species (e.g. Eudocima fullonia, a fruit piercing and at times, a pest species) but the Southern Pink Underwing Moth probably uses deep forested gullies for dispersal adults and mate searching, whereas E. fullonia will use a range of open as well as forested habitats. With adequate food a female moth (in captivity) lives for up to 30 days and deposit up to 300 eggs, depositing up to 30 (usually 12-15) eggs at each site over several evenings before moving on in search of other suitable sites. The results of surveys indicated food plant vines were present at times when moth stages were absent. The numbers of larvae observed on each sampling occasion, and number of similar instars, suggest that they were likely progeny from one or two females. This would be expected as very few vines in an otherwise suitable ecosystem carry immature stages, due to absence of low soft growth of the vine needed as food by larvae, inadequate shade effects or presence of insect predators that would attack the eggs and larvae (e.g. ants). These factors contribute to the patchy and scarce distribution of the moth even when the food plant appears adequate in densities and with needed phenotypic expression of the needed foliage.

Dependence of moth on food plants and ecosystems.



When assessing the conservation status for insects, recognized threats and threat abatement strategies for insects and their particular ecosystems. Species of insects investigated in this study are endemic, and found only in subtropical eastern Australia. Those classified as “Endangered” or other threat categories have lost large areas of habitats from human disturbance and survive as species only in fragments of suitable habitats. Losses of small remnants or disturbance, added to ‘edge effects’, could easily lead to total extinctions. In this category the wetland-adapted species investigated, the wetland “laced” Fritillary, the rainforest-adapted Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle, Nurus atlas and Southern Pink Underwing moth, Philodes imperialis smithersi, are threatened by loss of habitats and any disturbance of the habitats in northern New South Wales. The large beetle is extremely rare and is only known from a few fragmented localities in Northern New South Wales that have survived since the clearing of ‘Big Scrub’ rainforests. This predatory Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle (Nurus atlas), is not known to occur in south-eastern Queensland and is thought to be restricted to the very small ‘climatic envelopes’ of north-eastern NSW with one habitat pocket in far northern Queensland. It belongs to a group of beneficial group of well-known invertebrates and many important as predators of pests (e.g. armyworms) in cropping systems.

The Southern Pink Underwing moth, Philodes imperialis smithersi is likewise threatened by loss and disturbance of its rainforest habitats, and although it occurs in south-eastern Queensland, the moths only rarely breed in suitable “old growth” forests in heavily shaded areas where the larvae feed only on the very soft, low-growing foliage of the rare vine, Carronia multisepalea. Presence of soft leaves (measurable by leaf toughness devices) is critical for survival of young larvae of the moth. The moth usually breeds in steep gorges or where the canopy is closed to avoid desiccation from wind and exposure to bright sunlight. The moth is not known to breed within ca 50 m of open areas or near exposed road reserves (e.g. near Maleny, in SE Queensland), even when the food plant vine appears suitable for larvae. The moth is seasonal in the times of appearance of its larvae and adults and all stages, particularly the young larvae are very susceptible to periods of prolonged drought which also affects the quality of leaves of the food plant vine, C. multisepalea.

Direct disturbance, particularly weed invasions and nearby disturbances such as reduction in light entering canopies, and changed wind currents affecting host recognition, can influence the ability of the threatened moth and most populations in Queensland occur in national parks. When well-managed for weeds and without disturbance, National Parks are considered as areas set aside to protect the whole ecosystems for the moths, and to provide undisturbed refuges and habitats for other indigenous fauna and flora.

Food plant – insect interactions.

One species of rainforest vine (Carronia multisepalea, Menispermaceae) is known to be a food plant for larvae of the Southern Pink Underwing Moth. Unlike the northern subspecies (ssp. meyricki Olliff) where larvae feed on more than one species of vine, larvae of Southern subspecies (ssp. smithersi) feed on one vine species when growing in heavily shaded areas. The vine occurs only in south-eastern subtropical and sub-coastal rainforest ecosystems from Kin Kin Creek and the Mary River near Gympie, Queensland (Qld), south to the Bellinger River in New South Wales (NSW). The endemic vine is not considered to be of conservation concern in either State but it is regarded by botanists as rare in Queensland and few localities are known for the vine in NSW. Often overlooked, this species of vine bears male and female flowers on separate plants. Its pollinators have not been identified but may possibly be a rainforest species of ant that has been seen visiting the flowers. The reproduction and recruitment of this species of vine is therefore dependent on presence of both sexes of vine occurring within the range of the pollinators, a possible conservation issue for the abundance and recruitment of the vine if any of its habitats are disturbed. Such impacts on the specific food plant would have flow-on effects on the survival and abundance of the moth.



Both sexes of adult Southern Pink Underwing Moths feed on the juices from overripe and damaged (by other agents) fruit from range of species of plants. They have been seen mainly on over-ripe fruit of figs (e.g. Ficus watkinsiana, F. macrophylla, Syzygium spp.) where they imbibe juices containing sugars needed to sustain their longevity. Moths fed in captivity on over-ripe bananas have lived for 30 days and the females require regular food to develop their reproductive systems (Sands unpublished and in press). Many other fruit (damaged or over-ripe) will in time be found attractive to adult moths. Much more information is available from studies on the northern subspecies, Phyllodes imperialis meyricci, from near Cairns and in Papua New Guinea, where its feeding behaviour is similar to that of the southern subspecies.

Vine forms selected by the moth. The vine (C. multisepalea) is only utilised as a food plant for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth when it is growing in deep shade and when soft, low emergent growth is emerging either from the vine stems or from ground level from the rhizomes. Moths prefer to oviposit on heavily shaded growth up to 1 m from ground level, or rarely soft horizontal shoots to about 1.5 m. This soft growth occurs usually following periods of rain and female moths will not oviposit on the leaves unless the soft growth is present. Immature stages of the moth have never been observed on vines growing in unshaded areas, near fence lines where larvae are disturbed by airflows from frequent traffic or on the vines when ascending into the canopy. The larvae are believed to be very susceptible to ultra violet light and on one occasion, larvae exposed briefly to sunlight died after attempting to find shade.

The Southern Pink Underwing Moth is believed to be very susceptible to disturbance of vegetation and weeds invasions, in and surrounding breeding habitats, due to its selection of shaded vegetation with low vine growth to maximise larval camouflage and survival from predators.

(ii) Ecological profile of the moth’s food plant Carronia multisepalea.

Identity. The identity, distribution and distinguishing characteristics of this dioecious vine were recently summarised in Harden et al. (2007). Carronia multisepalea is one of 7-8 species in the family Menispermaceae occurring in northeastern NSW. In Queensland, the vine is considered uncommon (Leiper et al., 2008) or rare (P. Grimshaw pers. comm.) and where Carronia multisepalea often shares its habitat (see RE’s below) with two other rainforest vines, Melodorum leichhardtii and Pararistolochia praevenosa, the latter the principal food plant for another insect of conservation concern, the Richmond Birdwing Butterfly (Ornithoptera richmondia). Both moth (P. i. smithersi) and butterfly (O. richmondia) share similar habitats and are endemic to subtropical, eastern Australia.

Distribution. Carronia multisepalea is restricted to patches of lowland subtropical rainforests (to 600m), sub-coastally from Kin Kin, Queensland (Qld) to the Bellinger River, NSW, and inland from Conondale ranges, Qld to Dorrigo. Other species of Carronia occur in northern Queensland and New Guinea but C. multisepalea does not occur north of Gympie, Queensland. The vine usually grows on rich, well-drained basaltic soils, less commonly on other volcanic soils and nutrient-rich alluvial soils, where it favours slopes or steep creek embankments with high water tables. The vines produces long, tapering stems with the young, growing tip often without leaves. The roots form rhizomes from which stems often arise meters from the parent rot stocks. The vine is essentially a component of “old growth” rainforests where it ascends to 10m or more into canopies and where most flowers and seeds are produced.

Vine ecology & insect interactions. Little is published on the ecology of the vine. Male and female flowers are produced on separate vines but seeds are not often formed and uncommonly rarely seen. Most low growth (< 2m, as required by larvae of P. imperialis smithersi) is produced from underground rhizomes or shoots (often erect to1m from parent stems). Pollinators are not known but ants are active on flowers and some native bees are suspected to be the pollinating agents. As is common with other Menispermaceae (e.g. Blanchfield et al. 1993, Hungerford et al. 1998), the vine may contain biologically active compounds that are consumed and concentrated by moth larvae when feeding on leaves, and when compound are accumulated in the tissues, used to repel predators. Larvae of most moths recorded feeding on C. multisepalea belong to the family Erebidae (Calpinae: tribe Phyllodini) (formerly Noctuidae: Catocalinae) and they have developed defensive strategies including camouflage (e.g. as P. i. smithersi, image in Zborowski and Edwards, 2007; Calyptra spp.,), warning colours (P. i. smithersi, Eudocima spp.) or toxicity.



Architecture of vines. Mature vines of Caronia multisepalea are usually spindly and tall when growing in shade (usual growth form seen) but the vine may form spreading canopies over other plants when exposed to sunlight (especially following tree falls) or on exposed slopes of basaltic boulders. The high growth and spreading vines in canopies are not used by larvae of the Southern Pink Underwing Moth but are used by other large moth larvae, producubg similar feeding scars. Flowers of C. multisepalea are rarely seen unless low forms are present. In sub-coastal south-eastern Queensland most flowering has been observed from mid late September. The seedlings grow slowly in shade but growth is rapid after rain in open areas not used by the moth larvae. The vines used for breeding by the moth are therefore scattered and occur in localised shaded patches.

Cultivation of Carronia multisepalea. The vine has been grown from cuttings and seeds but the success of germination and root growth from cuttings has been slow, and the propagation methods are not easily defined when compared to the propagation of the rainforest vine, Pararistolochia praevenosa, used in other rainforest insect conservation projects (Sands and Grimshaw (2013). Sands in 1992 propagated severl vines from cuttings using a root hormone but the “take” (production of roots) was very low and the plants did not thrive after they had reached about 30 cms (at Chapel Hill, Qld). Attempts to propagate numbers of C. multisepalea by Barung Nursery at Maleny, Qld as part of a community recovery effort for P. i. smithersi met with delays in production of sufficient vines for distribution. However, Dorrigo Environment Watch Inc. Dorrigo, NSW, have grown a few plants of C. multisepalea from cuttings. At least 2 vines have continued to grow and one is currently thriving (Trevor & Carol Deane pers. comm.). The vine is unlikely to be amenable to translocation of rootstocks due to its extensive and branching sub-surface nature. Care needs to be taken when handling cutting materials due to the possible presence of biologically active compounds known to be present in other species of Menispermaceae (Blanchfield 1994). The Reviewer notes that translocation of the vine is no longer proposed (Response to Agency Comments W2B).

Rehabilitation of breeding sites for Phyllodes imperialis smithersi.

Unlike the relative ease for propagating and planting out the lowland birdwing butterfly vines (Pararistolochia praevenosa), to attract butterflies to breed, the moth’s narrow environmental (plants, climate, landforms) envelope will make the rehabilitation of breeding habitats difficult and prolonged. It would appear that planting the vine Carronia multisepalea in places suitable for oviposition, would require: (i) heavy shading, (ii) nearby (? distance) watercourses for searching adults, (iii) permanent moisture, (iv) nearby plants suitable for the vine substrates, and (v) selection of sites where plants associated with the vine (e.g. almost same as for P. praevenosa) are already present.

(iii) Atlas Ground Beetle.

The identity and distribution of this beetle has been summarised on the website Atlas of Living Australia. The distribution of the beetle is wider that that of the Southern Pink Underwing Moth with records from Atherton tablelands and central NSW. Little is known about the ecology of this beetle but new information has come from the surveys by BAAM. These surveys would indicate that burrows need some overhang, protection (e.g. overhanging log) or embankment, and the Reviewer considers soil type (e.g. basaltic soils) may be important, based on information available for other large ground beetles. The type of rainforest ecosystems and particular plants may also be important. It may be possible to develop micro-habitats in areas rehabilitated. Use of night vision glasses in surveys could contribute to information about nocturnal activity away from burrows, prey, ground shelters and any particular plants used for making burrows (other than While Cedar).

6. Feasibility for developing a Management / Recovery Plan for the Southern Pink Underwing Moth (Phyllodes imperialis smithersi)

Preamble. In New South Wales, listing an animal as ‘threatened’ is recognized by agencies as a catalyst for development of a Recovery Plan. In some other States a Management Plan is though to be adequate to address threatening processes. However, in several states recovery and management plans have not been developed for the majority of listed species. . ‘Listing’ is not seen as an adequate step to protect a species unless actions to recover the species are identified. The objectives for any Recovery Plan is to address threats, to prevent declines in numbers and in numbers of populations, and to ultimately aim at down-listing the species (or subspecies), provided management for the species includes on-going management of threats (see Sands 1999, Sands and New 2002).



Threats. Very little is know about the ecology of the Southern Pink Underwing Moth (P. imperialis smithersi) but its habitats are known to be lowland subtropical rainforest of Australia (NS and Qld) where it is dependent on one species of vine, Carronia multisepalea. Some threats (e.g. habitat loss, loss of food plant, weed invasion) are easily identified to for the basis of a recovery plan but how to address these threats requires planning and expert guidance. Most ecosystems that support the Pink Underwing Moth have been threatened by human disturbance and by weeds (camphor laurel, lantana) displacing the plant communities and several grasses (green panic, molasses grass) after invading the understory, threaten habitats by increases in flammability. A serious threat, the insecurity of tenure of habitats (including national parks) may threaten remnants of all indigenous biodiversity in Australia.

A Proposed feasibility study. At a workshop hosted by CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences (Canberra, 6-7 July 2013) several insects of conservation concern were discussed. The Southern Pink Underwing Moth was seen as one species to benefit from habitat management and likely to gain the interest of community groups in northern NSW as a ‘Flagship species’. With these species, agencies and the community can contribute to recovery, similar to the contributions to the Richmond Birdwing Butterfly Conservation Project (e.g www.richmondbirdwing.org.au), a species that occupies similar habitats. As it is known the southern limit for the moth is Dorrigo-Bellinger River, members of the Dorrigo Environment Watch Inc., attending the Canberra Workshop expressed interest in commencing a feasibility study for recovering the moth. Since then in conjunction with their plant nursery, they have been seeking ways to support the first activity - how to cultivate the moth’s food plant, Carronia multisepalea. Members have already had success in striking cuttings and have one or two vines producing growth after they have been planting out.

Members of Dorrigo Environment Watch (DEW) have invited three people as an Advisory Team to assist with developing a ‘feasibility study’ on the moth: Drs David Britton (Australian Museum, Sydney), Michael Braby (Northern Territory Govt.) and Don Sands (CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Brisbane). Objectives of the DEW ‘feasibility study’ are to: (i) develop methods to propagate C. multisepalea, (ii) expand community awareness for the plight of the moth in the region (with workshop / talks), (iii) commence mapping of moth habitats and C. multisepalea (north from Bellinger River, NSW), and (iv) integrate information on the moth from further north in its range (including Queensland) to guide production of a recovery plan.

Opportunities to support the DEW ‘feasibility study’

For threatened insect species “offsets” have sometimes been put in place to stabilise declining species populations and gain the recognition and support by members of the community. In their feasibility study, DEW will require funds to develop and evaluate their propagation facility and materials (e.g. root hormones, shade cloth, potting mixes, stakes), to run community workshops, to cover travel costs for preliminary mapping etc. I warmly recommend that the Main Roads Authority consider support that could enable Dorrigo Environment Watch to begin these activities and I am happy to help facilitate contacts between the two groups.

Publicity. In the local media several years ago, media publicity was given when habitats of the endangered Bathurst Copper Butterfly (Paralucia spinifera) were threatened by roadworks near Bathurst, NSW. This related to efforts by the Authority to avoid and then re-locate food plants from the path road widening. The work was recognised by the community as unusually considerate and it has been followed by several local conservation activities sponsored by the Bathurst Council (including publicity by the Lord Mayor, Bathurst).

There is an opportunity for the NSW Main Roads to publicise their efforts to consider impacts on threatened insects and the successes by the contracted surveyors (BAAM) towards locating threatened insect species. Local communities need to be made aware of the importance of protecting threatened species and their habitats (not only koalas!), and how generic threat abatement and off-set strategies can be sought to address potential threats from the range of human environmental disturbances.

http://www.richmondbirdwing.org.au/



7. References

Blanchfield JT, Kitching W, Sands DPA, Thong Y.H, Kennard, C.H.L. and Byriel, K.A. (1993). Alkaloids from Australian Stephania (Menispermaceae) species. Natural Products Letters 3: 305-312.

EPBC Federal Act (1999). Environmental Protection and Conservation Act. Australian Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra, Australia.

Harden GJ, McDonald WJF, Williams JB (2007). Rainforest climbing plants. A field guide to their identification. Gwen Harden Publishing, Nambucca Heads, New South Wales.

Hungerford, N.L., Sands, D.P.A. and Kitching, W. (1998). Isolation and structure of some constituents of the Australian medicinal plant, Tinospora smilacina (“snakevine”). Australian Journal of Chemistry 51: 1103-1111.

Leiper G, Glazebrook J, Cox D, Rathie K. (2009 ). Mangroves to Mountains (revised edition). A Field Guide to the Native Plants of South-east Queensland. Society for Growing Australian Native Plants Inc. (Qld Region), Browns Plains, Queensland.

Orr AG (1994) Inbreeding depression in Australian butterflies: Some implications for conservation. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 36: 179-184

Lott R. H, Duggin J. A. (1993) Conservation significance and long-term viability of subtropical rainforest remnants of the Big Scrub, north eastern New South Wales. New South Wales Department of Planning, Sydney.

Sands D, Grimshaw P (2013) Cultivation of the birdwing butterfly vine Pararistolochia praevenosa (Aristolochiaceae). Fact Sheet, Richmond Birdwing Conservation Network & Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland, Brisbane

Sands DPA, New TR (2002). The Action Plan for Australian Butterflies. Environment Australia, Canberra.

Sands DPA, Scott SE, Moffatt R (1997) The threatened Richmond birdwing butterfly Ornithoptera richmondia [Gray]: a community conservation project. Memoirs of the Museum of Victoria 56: 449-453

Sands DPA (2008) Conserving the Richmond birdwing butterfly over two decades: Where to next? Ecological Management & Restoration 9: 4-16

Sands DPA (2012) Review of Australian Phyllodes imperialis Druce (Lepidoptera: Erebidae) with description of a new subspecies from subtropical Australia. Australian Entomologist 39: 281-292

Clark GM and Spier-Ashcroft F (2003). A review of the conservation status of selected Australian non-marine invertebrates. Species synopsis (4). Environment Australia, Canberra.

Zborowski, P. and Edwards, E.D. 2007. A Guide to Australian moths.

CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne; 214 pp.

……………………………………………..

Curriculum Vitae: Dr Donald Sands

Don Sands is an insect taxonomist and ecologist, having specialised in the identities and interactions of predators and parasitoids with their hosts, and how to ensure safety of biological control agents when introduced from overseas in biological control programs. Don’s studies sought to distinguish and select those species likely to be efficient for controlling their hosts (plants and insects) from those with benign impacts. His research on insect interactions led more recently to focus on insect conservation issues, particularly beneficial insects in farming systems, as well as ‘flagship species’ - those charismatic species that can be used as icons for the community, and to involve members in the conservation and rehabilitation of threatened species.



Don joined CSIRO Division of Entomology in Sydney in 1967 to study the biological control of fruit flies and scale insects and in 1972 he transferred to Papua New Guinea to work on agricultural pests, re-joining CSIRO in Port Moresby in 1973 to work on ecology and control of the Old World Screw Worm Fly. In 1978 he returned to Brisbane to work on biological control of the weeds and subtropical pests of horticulture (including fruit-piercing moth Eudocima spp.). He applied taxonomic principals to correctly identify and biological control agents in the insect orders Lepidoptera, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera. He developed collaboration with several overseas projects and was involved in the successful biological control of 5 major international weed species and of 6 insect pests. He published more than 120 scientific papers and five books. As a Post-retirement Fellow he wrote two major works, Biological Control of Arthropods in Australia (with Dr DF Waterhouse, ACIAR) and The Action Plan for Australian Butterflies (with Prof. TR New), the latter to review the conservation status of all Australian butterflies.

Don’s conservation research and concerns began in the 1990s (e.g. Richmond birdwing butterfly, Ornithoptera richmondia) ands was followed by a research project on the Queen Alexandra’s Birdwing Butterfy (Ornithoptera alexandrae), a large and spectacular threatened species of international concern. His studies with CSIRO on fruit piercing moths led to the discovery in 1987 of spectacular, non-destructive related Southern Pink Underwing Moth, subsequently recognised as endangered species (Federal, NSW). Most recently Don published the description of this moth and provided a name for this new and unnamed sub-species. This moth, the Southern Pink Underwing Moth (Phyllodes imperialis smithersi), is becoming an icon for insect conservation, and is threatened by its dependence on only one endemic vine as a food plant, occurring in threatened fragments of the subtropical rainforests of eastern Australia.

Academic qualifications:

MSc (1976), PhD (1982); Associate Australian Institute of Medical Science (1965).

Employment & postings:

1967-1972 CSIRO Division of Entomology, Sydney, NSW

1972-1973 Department of Agriculture, Stock and Fisheries, Lae, Papua New Guinea

1973-1978 CSIRO, Division of Entomology, Port Moresby. Papua New Guinea

1978-1997 CSIRO Division of Entomology, Brisbane:

Experimental Officer 1978-1983,

Senior Research Scientist 1983-1985,

Principal Research Scientist 1985-1994,

Senior Principal Research Scientist 1994-1997; Officer-in-Charge Brisbane 1992 – 1995, Deputy Program Leader 1995 - 1997

1998 - Post-retired Fellow, Honorary Research Fellow; CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences

Awards

1985. UNESCO Science Prize (with CSIRO colleagues). The specific contribution by Sands was identified as "… discovery by Sands of a weevil previously unknown to science;..."

1988. AIDAB Award for Excellence in Overseas Development Assistance (shared with colleagues).

1990. EUREKA POL Prize (with colleagues). For Environmental Research, hosted by the Australian Museum, Sydney, for “Scientific excellence in research leading to the resolution of an environmental problem”.

1990. ROLEX AWARD FOR ENTERPRISE, Honourable Mention (with colleagues)

1990. CSIRO National Incentive Scheme, for work done in National Interest. Awarded for contributions towards biological control of scale insects.

2001. Medal of the Order of Australia. For service to the horticultural industry in Australia and the Pacific region through the development of biological pest control solutions, and to entomology particularly through conservation projects.



2010 Australian Natural History Medallion. Nomination by the Australian Entomological Society.

Sands references relating to conservation of insects

Sands D.P.A (1962) Papilio priamus richmondius. Communication Entomological Section of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales 13: 21.

Sands, D.P.A. (1996). Birdwing blues. Wildlife Australia. Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland 33: 7-9.

New, T.R. and Sands, D.P.A. (1996). Progress in butterfly conservation in Australia. Pp. 116-127 in Decline and conservation of butterflies in Japan III. Proceedings International Symposium on Butterfly Conservation, Osaka, Japan 1994.

Sands, D.P.A. (1997) Richmond birdwing. Nature Australia, Summer 1996-97. Pp. 24 - 29, Australian Museum, Sydney.

Sands, D.P.A., Scott, S.E. and Moffatt, R. (1997) The threatened Richmond birdwing butterfly (Ornithoptera richmondia [Gray]): a community conservation project. Memoirs of the Museum of Victoria 56: 449-453.

Sands, D.P.A. (1997). Alexfloydia repens Simon: a food plant for Ocybadistes knightorum Lambkin and Donaldson (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) and their conservation significance. The Australian Entomologist 24: 117-118.

Sands, D.P.A. (1999). Conservation status of Lepidoptera: assessment, threatening processes and recovery actions. Pp. 382-387 in (eds Ponder W. and Lunney, D), The Other 99%. The Conservation and Biodiversity of Invertebrates. Transactions of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman.

Sands, D.P.A. (1999). Conservation and recovery of the Richmond birdwing butterfly, Ornithoptera richmondia and its lowland food plant, Pararistolochia praevenosa. Pp 124-132, in (Boyes, B.R. ed.), Rainforest Recovery for the New Millenium. Proceedings of the World Wide Fund For Nature 1998 South-East Rainforest Recovery Conference. WWF, Sydney.

New T.R. and Sands. D.P.A (2002) Narrow-range endemicity and conservation status: interpretations for Australian butterflies. Invertebrate Systematics 16: 665-670.

New, TR. AND Sands, D.P.A.. (2002). Conservation concerns for butterflies in urban areas of Australia. Journal of Insect Conservation 6: 207-215.

Sands, D.P.A. AND Scott, S. (eds). (2002). Conservation of birdwing butterflies. SciComEd, and THECA, Brisbane. 48 pp.

New, T.R. AND Sands, D.P.A. (2002) Narrow-range endemicity and conservation status: interpretations for Australian butterflies. Invertebrate Systematics 16: 665-670.

Sands, D.P.A. and New, T.R. (2002) The Action Plan for Australian Butterflies. Environment Australia, Canberra. 378 pp. and CD.

New, T.R. AND Sands, D.P.A. (2003). Coordinated invertebrate surveys in Australia’s National Parks: an important tool in refining invertebrate conservation management. Records of the South Australian Museum Monograph Series No. 7: 203-207.

New, T.R. AND Sands, D.P.A. (2003). The listing and de-listing of invertebrate species for conservation in Australia. Journal of Insect Conservation 7: 199-205.

New, T.R. AND Sands, D.P.A. (2004). Management of threatened insect species in Australia, with particular reference to butterflies. Australian Journal of Entomology 43: 258-270.

Sands, D.P.A AND New, T.R.. (2008). Conservation status and needs of the butterflies on Torres Strait Islands Journal of Insect Conservation 12: 325-332



Sands, D.P.A. AND New, T.R. (2008). Irregular diapause, apparency and evaluating conservation status: anomalies from the Australian butterflies. Journal of Insect Conservation 12: 81-85.

Sands, D.P.A (2008) Conserving the Richmond birdwing butterfly over two decades: Where to next? Ecological Management & Restoration 9: 4-16.

New, T.R., Yen, AL, Sands, D.P.A, Greenslade, P, Neville, PJ, York, A and Collett, NG. (2010). Planned fires and invertebrate conservation in south east Australia. Journal of Insect Conservation 14: 567-544.

Sands, D.P.A (2011). (Abstract). Invasive African Grasses: rising threats to Australian invertebrate biodiversity. Joint Invertebrate Biodiversity & Conservation / Society of Australian Biologists Conference, Parkville Victoria 4-8 December 2011. p. 55.

Sands, D.P.A (2012). Southern pink underwing moth Phyllodes imperialis H. Druce pp. 38-39, in (eds Curtis LK, Dennis AJ, McDonald K, Kyne, PM and Debus, SJS), pp. 38-39, Queensland’s Threatened Animals. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne. 2012.

Sands, D.P.A (2012). Review of Australian Phyllodes imperialis Druce (Lepidoptera: Erebidae) with description of a new subspecies from subtropical Australia. The Australian Entomologist 439: 281-292.

Sands, D.P.A (2013). Effects of invasive scales on forest butterflies in Australia, and benefits following biological control (Expanded Abstract), pp. 82-85 (in eds. Peter G. Mason, David R. Gillespie & Charles Vincent). Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Biological Control of Arthropods, Pucon, Chile March 4-8.

Sands DPA & New TR. 2013. Conservation of the Richmond birdwing butterfly in Australia. Springer, Dordrecht.

………………………………………..

Appendix 1. Plant communities associated with Caronia multisepalea (in SE Queensland)

(RE: Regional ecosystems classification of plant communities in Queensland)

RE 12.2.1 Notophyll / evergreen vine forest (rarely) . Moist or wet valley floors of parabolic high sand dunes.

RE 12.2.2. Mixed microphyll / notophyll vine forest (rarely). Coastal dunes and behind beach ridges.

RE 12.3.1 Complex to simple notophyll vine forest and gallery rainforest edging stream channels (usually). Quaternary alluvial soils and plains, edging stream channels and embankments in high rainfall areas.

RE 12.3.2 Tall, wet sclerophyll forest, with rainforest understory (usually). Soils of alluvial plains, fringing streams and narrow gullies in high rainfall areas.

RE 12.5.13. Microphyll and notophyll vine forest (rarely). Soils on lateritised basalt .

RE 12.8.3 Complex and wet notophyll vine forest (rarely). Soils on igneous rocks, especially basalt.

RE 12.8.4 Complex Araucarian notophyll vine forest (rarely). Soils on igneous rocks including basalt and lateritised basalt.

RE 12.8.13 Microphyll / notophyll rainforest (usually). Soils on igneous rocks, especially basalt.

RE 12.11.1 Simple notophyll vine forest (rarely). Sils of gully floors on old, deformed metamorphic sediments and volcanic rocks.

RE 12.11.2 Tall moist-adapted eucalypt forest with rainforest understory (rarely). Soils on strongly metamorphosed sedimentary and inter-bedded metamorphic rocks.

RE 12.11.10 Evergreen notophyll vine forest ()usually). Soils on metamorphosed sedimentary and sometimes inter-bedded metamorphic rocks.



Appendix 2. Plant nurseries with cultivation experience on Carronia multisepalea

1. Dorrigo Environment Watch Inc., PO Box 284, Dorrigo, NSW. 2453. Has grown C. multisepalea from cuttings. At least 2 vines have continued to grow and one is currently thriving (Trevor Deane pers. comm.). Likely to provide information on cultivation of the vine.

2. Barung Nursery. Shop 3, Riverside Centre, Maleny, Qld 4552. No longer growing C. multisepalea but cultivators may have useful information on propagation.



Appendix C – Threatened invertebrate species profiles



Southern Pink Underwing Moth (Phyllodes imperialis smithersi)

Photo source: Dr Don Sands

Adult Southern Pink Underwing Moth

Carronia multisepalea, host plant for Southern Pink Underwing Moth (and also

Common Fruit-piercing Moth; see below)



Mature larva of Southern Pink Underwing Moth on its host plant, in alarmed

position

Mature larva of Southern Pink Underwing Moth on its host plant, in resting

position

|——––| 2 cm

|——–| 1 cm



Eggs (left) and young larva (right) of Southern Pink Underwing Moth on the underside of a leaf of its host plant

Larva of Common Fruit-piercing Moth (a non-threatened species) on the same

species of host plant used by Southern Pink Underwing Moth

|——––––––––| 1 cm

|——–| 1 cm



DESCRIPTION • A large moth with leaf-like wings that camouflages well against foliage; hind wings

(normally hidden when stationary) have distinctive pink and black colouration. • Larvae feed on the foliage of Carronia multisepalea, a plant that grows in the form of a shrub or

a vine on rich volcanic soils in association with mature rainforest and regrowth vegetation. • Immature larvae are cryptic (twig-like) and often occur on the underside of leave and sometimes

on stems • More mature larvae have a characteristic threat display as pictured

SIMILAR SPECIES • Common Fruit-piercing Moth Eudocima fullonia

• Adult moth a similar size and shape; hind wings orange and black (rather than pink and black).

• Larvae also occur on the same vine, but are more uniformly brown and have two “eye spots” on each side.

CURRENT LEGISLATIVE STATUS EPBC Act: Endangered; TSC Act: Endangered.

AUSTRALIAN DISTRIBUTION From near Gympie in south-eastern Queensland south to near Urunga in north-eastern New South Wales.

Source: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=86084

HABITAT • Rainforest on rich volcanic soils and fertile alluvium where the host vine, Carronia multisepalea, is

present. • The adult feeds on the soft fruits of native rainforest plants, including Ficus and Syzygium and

possibly also on fruits of cultivated plants in the vicinity of rainforest.

THREATS

• Habitat loss and fragmentation due to clearing for various purposes. • Degradation of habitat through disturbance and weed invasion. • Adult moths may be displaced through attraction to artificial light sources.



KEY MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS

• The project boundary (i.e. area intended for vegetation clearing) is to be pegged out prior to site inspection.

• A site inspection by an ecologist would be required on each day prior to the clearing of mapped potential habitat for Southern Pink Underwing Moth.

• The ecologist would check the area thoroughly for the presence of the host plant (Carronia multisepalea).

• On each occasion where a host plant is located within the project boundary, the plant would be checked thoroughly for eggs or larvae.

• The identification of any larvae would be checked carefully to confirm if it matches Southern Pink Underwing Moth (c.f. Common Fruit-piercing Moth)

• Any eggs located on the host plant would be assumed to belong to Southern Pink Underwing Moth

• Any larvae or eggs would be relocated to another host plant >10 m outside of the project boundary; preference would be given to a plant that has ample foliage and at least some evidence of host use by the moth (e.g. recent feeding activity; or 1–2 larvae already present).

• The development of any relocated immature stages would be monitored for three weeks following translocation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Herbison-Evans, D., J. Moss & N. Hewett (2004). Phyllodes imperialis H.Druce, 1888.

[Online]. Available from: http://www.usyd.edu.au/macleay/larvae/cato/imper.html.


http://www.usyd.edu.au/macleay/larvae/cato/imper.html



Atlas Rainforest Ground-beetle (Nurus atlas)

Atlas Rainforest Beetle Nurus atlas waiting for prey at the entrance to a burrow

Photo source: BAAM 2014 DESCRIPTION The Atlas Rainforest Ground-beetle is a large, heavily-built, black-coloured ground beetle about 3 to 3.5 cm in length. Its larger size distinguishes it from the related Shorter Rainforest Ground-beetle. CURRENT LEGISLATIVE STATUS EPBC Act: Not Listed; TSC Act: Endangered.

DISTRIBUTION Historically widespread in heavily timbered high rainfall areas east of the Great Dividing Range on the north coast of NSW. The species had not been seen for many years and was thought to be extinct until it was rediscovered in Victoria Park near Lismore in 1973. Presently it is only known from this location and a few others in the Lismore-Alstonville area.

HABITAT • Low-elevation rainforest and wet eucalypt forest with a well-developed rainforest understorey.

Other habitat requirements may be relatively undisturbed old-growth forests on highly productive soils and consistently high moisture levels.

• It is flightless and preys on other ground invertebrates.

THREATS

• Disturbance to rainforest and wet eucalypt forest remnants including cattle grazing, agricultural activities, fire, removal of fallen timber and litter, and desiccation caused by widening of tracks and small scale clearing.

• Risk of local extinction due to small isolated populations. • Clearing of rainforest and wet eucalypt forest remnants. • Invasion of habitat by introduced weeds. • Predation by feral and domestic cats. • Beetle collecting activities. KEY MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS This species is in the NSW Department of the Environment’s ‘Data Deficient’ stream as there is little know about its distribution and the management techniques required to secure it in the wild.

Source: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedSpeciesApp/profile.aspx?id=10564

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedSpeciesApp/profile.aspx?id=10564



Appendix D – Targeted survey and habitat assessment for Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly (BAAM, 2014)

4--*'--*'! 1- "!**),!.!#)&)# ()'(4!5 2.'/!$%

1!/'%1%$ 02/3%5!,$ (!")1!1 !00%00+%,1

&-/ #-!01!* .%1!*1!)*$/!'-,&*5

/9@?AC @A9@6A98;?A

/?68B 6>8 +6A<C<=9 09AD<79B

BAAM Pty LtdFile No. 0361-001 Version 0

Document Control Sheet

File Number: 0361-002

Project Manager/s: Dr Lindsay Popple

Client: Roads and Maritime Services

Project Title: Woolgoolga to Ballina Pacific Highway Upgrade Targeted Survey and HabitatAssessment for Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly.

Project Author/s: Dr Lindsay Popple and Ko Oishi.

Project Summary: A targeted survey was undertaken for Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly during mid-November 2014 in association with the proposed Woolgoolga to Ballina Pacific Highway Upgradein northern New South Wales. The results of the survey and wetland mapping were used to informmapping of potential and known breeding habitat for the dragonfly.

Draft Preparation History:

Draft No. Date draftcompleted

Reviewed by Issued by

0361-002 Draft A 12/12/2014 Adrian Caneris Lindsay Popple

Revision/ Checking History Track:

Version Date of Issue Checked by Issued by0361-002 Version 0 24/02/2015 Jedd Appleton Lindsay Popple

Document Distribution:

Destination Revision1 Date

Dispatched2 Date

Dispatched3 Date

Dispatched4 Date

DispatchedClient Copy 1 -digital

A 12/12/2014 0 24/02/2015

Client Copy 1-hard copyPDF - server A 12/12/2014 0 24/02/2015PDF – backup –archived Disk/tape

A 12/12/2014 0 24/02/2015

Hard Copy -library


NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS REPORT

Copyright and reproduction

This report and all indexes, schedules, annexures or appendices are subject to copyright pursuant tothe Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). Subject to statutory defences, no party may reproduce, publish, adaptor communicate to the public, in whole or in part, the content of this report without the expresswritten consent of Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd.

Purpose of Report

Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd has produced this report in its capacity asconsultants for and on the request of Roads and Maritime Services (the "Client") for the sole purposeof documenting the results of a preconstruction survey and series of nocturnal monitoring events toform a baseline for conservation significant invertebrates in association with the proposedWoolgoolga to Ballina Pacific Highway Upgrade (the "Specified Purpose"). This information and anyrecommendations in this report are particular to the Specified Purpose and are based on facts,matters and circumstances particular to the subject matter of the report and the Specified Purpose atthe time of production. This report is not to be used, nor is it suitable, for any purpose other than theSpecified Purpose. Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd disclaims all liability for anyloss and/or damage whatsoever arising either directly or indirectly as a result of any application, useor reliance upon the report for any purpose other than the Specified Purpose.

This report has been produced solely for the benefit of the Client. Biodiversity Assessment andManagement Pty Ltd does not accept that a duty of care is owed to any party other than the Client.This report is not to be used by any third party other than as authorised in writing by BiodiversityAssessment and Management Pty Ltd and any such use shall continue to be limited to the SpecifiedPurpose. Further, Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd does not make any warranty,express or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use in whole orin part of the report or application or use of any other information or process disclosed in this reportand to the full extent allowed by law excludes liability in contract, tort or otherwise, for any loss ordamage sustained by any person or body corporate arising from or in connection with the supply oruse of the whole part of the report through any cause whatsoever.

Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd has used information provided to it by the Clientand governmental registers, databases, departments and agencies in the preparation of this report.Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd does not know, nor does it have any reason tosuspect, that the information provided to it was false, inaccurate, incomplete or misleading at thetime of its receipt. This report is supplied on the basis that while Biodiversity Assessment andManagement Pty Ltd believes all the information in it is deemed reliable at the time of publication, itdoes not warrant its accuracy or completeness and to the full extent allowed by law excludes liabilityin contract, tort or otherwise, for any loss or damage sustained by any person or body corporatearising from or in connection with the supply or use of the whole or any part of the information in thisreport through any cause whatsoever.

Signed on behalf of Date: 20 th Feb 2015Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd

Director


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Biodiversity Assessment and Management (BAAM) has prepared this report for Roads andMaritime Services to document the results of a targeted survey and habitat assessment ofCoastal Petaltail Dragonfly along the corridor of the proposed Woolgoolga to Ballina PacificHighway Upgrade. The objectives of the study are to:

1. Survey and map the occurrence of adult Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly within the StudyArea;

2. Perform habitat assessments for Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly along the proposed roadalignment; and

3. Perform mapping of Known and Potential Breeding Habitat for Coastal PetaltailDragonfly along a 100 metre buffer of the proposed road corridor.

The survey was performed over five days in November 2014, covering 32 sites within oradjacent to the proposed road corridor. Wetland areas and fringing vegetation were traversedusing active observation to search for Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly. Dragonflies were capturedwith a long-handled insect net and identified prior to release throughout the survey. Habitatassessments were performed noting any characteristics recognised as being important forbreeding habitat of the target species. These included the presence/ absence of: permanent orsemi-permanent wetlands, noticeable pollution, aquatic and fringing vegetation, open standingwater and more extensive wetland habitat in the vicinity of each site. Sites were then assigneda habitat condition score from criteria defined using these habitat characteristics.

No observations of adult Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly individuals were made during the survey.This was despite suitable conditions for dragonfly activity for the majority of the surveytimeframe and the observation and identification of numerous smaller dragonfly species thatwould be a potential food source for the target species.

A single previous record of Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly exists in the New South Wales WildlifeAtlas database within 300 m of the proposed highway corridor northeast of Tucabia. Thisrecord appears to be associated with an isolated permanent or semi-permanent wetlandimmediately adjacent to the location of the record. An inspection of the broader area during thesurvey found no suitable breeding habitat in the vicinity of the proposed highway corridor.

As no observations of Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly were made during the survey and no suitablebreeding habitat was identified in association with past records in close proximity to theproposed highway corridor, no Known Breeding Habitat was mapped for this species.Nevertheless, several suitable wetland habitats were identified during the course of the survey.This, in conjunction with examination of aerial mapping and vegetation mapping associated withthe Project, led to the identification and mapping of 65 polygons and 174 hectares of PotentialBreeding Habitat for Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly. Given the sporadic appearance of CoastalPetaltail Dragonfly due to its prolonged life cycle, the presence/ absence of the species inassociation with these areas of Potential Breeding Habitat could only be assessed throughrepeated surveys over several years.

While the proposed highway corridor may have potential to impact upon areas identified asPotential Breeding Habitat for Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly, it should be noted that far moreextensive wetland areas to the west of the Project have been avoided. It is suggested thatmanagement controls should focus on reduction of impacts to mapped wetlands throughhighway design. Some brief recommendations for the management of weeds that arerecognised to potentially transform wetland habitats are also provided.

BAAM Pty Ltd Page iFile No. 0361-001 Version 0

TARGETED SURVEY AND HABITAT ASSESSMENT FORCOASTAL PETALTAIL DRAGONFLY

WOOLGOOLGA TO BALLINA PACIFIC HIGHWAY UPGRADE

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................11.1. Background and Purpose ................................................................................................11.2. Site Description................................................................................................................11.3. Proposed Works ..............................................................................................................11.4. Target Species.................................................................................................................11.5. Past Surveys....................................................................................................................3

2.0 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................32.1. Targeted Survey and Site Assessments .........................................................................32.2. Habitat Mapping and Condition Scores...........................................................................3

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................53.1. Database Records ...........................................................................................................53.2. Targeted Surveys.............................................................................................................53.3. Habitat Assessments .......................................................................................................73.4. Habitat Mapping and Condition Scores...........................................................................7

4.0 KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR IMPACT MITIGATION ..........................................................29

5.0 REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................30

Table of Figures

Figure 1.1: Location of the Study Area

Figure 2.1: Location of survey and habitat assessment sites within and adjacent to the StudyArea

Figure 3.1: Records of Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly in the vicinity of the Study Area

Figure 3.2: Habitat mapping for Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly within the Study Area

Table of Appendices

Appendix 1: Habitat assessment proforma for Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly targeted survey

Table of Terms and Abbreviations

BAAM Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd

EPBC Commonwealth Environmental Protection and BiodiversityConservation Act 1999

Study Area An area within 100 m of the proposed Woolgoolga to BallinaPacific Highway Upgrade Corridor, northern New South Wales

TSC Act New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

Targeted Survey and Habitat Assessment for CoastalPetaltail DragonflyWoolgoolga to Ballina Pacific Highway Upgradefor Roads and Maritime Services

BAAM Pty Ltd Page 1File No. 0361-002 Draft A

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Biodiversity Assessment and Management(BAAM) has prepared this report for Roads andMaritime Services for the purpose ofdocumenting the results of a targeted survey andhabitat assessment for threatened dragonfliesalong the proposed Woolgoolga to Ballina PacificHighway Upgrade road corridor in northern NewSouth Wales (the ‘Study Area’). This study aimsto:

1. Survey and map the occurrence of adultCoastal Petaltail Dragonfly within the StudyArea;

2. Perform habitat assessments for CoastalPetaltail Dragonfly along the proposed roadalignment; and

3. Perform mapping of known and potentialbreeding habitat for Coastal PetaltailDragonfly along a 100 metre buffer of theproposed road corridor.

The results of this report are based on siteinvestigations undertaken by Dr Lindsay Poppleand Ko Oishi on 17–21 November 2014.

1.2. SITE DESCRIPTION

The Study Area is broadly linear and partiallyfollows the footprint of the existing PacificHighway from Arrawarra near Woolgoolga in thesouth to near Pimlico in the north (Figure 1-1).The area includes mostly flat to undulatingterrain, generally avoiding areas with extensivetopographic relief, as well as extremely low-lyingareas with extensive flood plains anddepressions.

Vegetation types targeted for the purpose of thisstudy include a variety of permanent to semi-permanent coastal freshwater wetlands listed inthe NSW Department of Environment andHeritage listing advice (DEH 2014b). Theseincluded:

- Coastal Floodplains Wetlands;

- Coastal Swamp Forests;

- Coastal Freshwater Lagoons;

- Coastal Heath Swamps; and

- Coastal Valley Grassy Woodlands.

For the purpose of this project, designation ofhabitat value focused on whether a site exhibitedsuitable characteristics as a breeding habitat(see Section 2.0).

1.3. PROPOSED WORKS

It is understood that a development is intendedto take place within the Study Area in the form ofa partly raised, multi-lane highway, withinterchanges, lighting and temporaryconstruction infrastructure located at appropriatepoints. These works will require clearing ofvegetation and earthworks throughout a portionof the length of the Study Area; however moreextensive wetland areas have generally beenavoided. More specific details on the project areavailable in NSW Roads and Maritime Services(2013b).

1.4. TARGET SPECIES

The single species targeted for this survey wasCoastal Petaltail Dragonfly Petalura litorea(Endangered under the New South Wales TSCAct). A closely related species, Giant DragonflyPetalura gigantea (also Endangered under theTSC Act as well as under the CommonwealthEnvironmental Protection and BiodiversityConservation (EPBC) Act), has historically beenrecorded to the west of the Study Area (nearKalgan and also from Grafton) in the Atlas ofLiving Australia database(http://www.ala.org.au/). However, based onTheisinger (1999), these records are attributableto Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly. Theisinger (1999)notes that the two closely-related dragonflyspecies are likely to be mutually exclusive (i.e.allopatric) in their geographical distributions,although there remains some possibility for co-occurrence (sympatry). DEH (2014a) recognisesthe potential for sympatry in coastal northernNew South Wales to the south of Coffs Harbour(well outside of the Study Area). Therefore, onlyCoastal Petaltail Dragonfly was the subject ofthis assessment. The targeted survey did,nevertheless, aim to capture and confirm theidentification of any Petalura dragonfliesencountered during the field component.

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

LISMORE

GRAFTON

CASINO BALLINA

WOOLI

YAMBA

ILUKA

CORAKI

TATHAM

TUCABIA

ULMARRA

MACLEAN

HARWOOD

WARDELL

MULLAWAY

RED ROCK

NYMBOIDA

LAWRENCE

COALDALE

WHIPORIE

WOODBURN

WYRALLAH

GLENREAGH

RAPPVILLE

MUMMULGUM

WOOLGOOLGA

BRUSHGROVE

CHATSWORTH

EVANS HEAD

BROADWATER

MONGOGARIE

COPMANHURST

MALLANGANEE

ALSTONVILLE

MINNIE WATER

CAMIRA CREEK

CORINDI BEACH

PILLAR VALLEY

COUTTS CROSSING

CARRS CREEK JUNCTION

153°0'E

153°0'E29

°0'S

29°0

'S

30°0

'S

30°0

'S

© Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd. While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this data, Biodiversity Assessment and Management makes no representat ions or warrant ies about its accuracy, reliability,completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and disclaims all responsibility and all liability (inc luding without limitation liability in negligence) for all expenses, losses, damages (inc luding indirect consequent ial damage) and costswhich might be incurred as a result of the data being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and for any reason.

Document Location: D:\GIS\Jobs\0361-002 Coas tal Petaltail Dragonfly\GIS\MXDs\R eportMaps\Figure 1-1 Location of Study Area.mxdDate: 15/12/2014 8:24:50 AM

Figure:

Title:

Project:

Client:

!Coordinate Sys tem: GCS GDA 1994

Datum: GDA 1994Units : Degree

0 7.5 15 22.5 303.75Kilometers

at A41:703,891Notes:

Reviewed by: LP Date: 15/12/2014Drawn By: MG

1-1

Location of the Study Area

Targeted Survey and HabitatAssessment for Coastal PetaltailDragonfly - Woolgoolga to BallinaPacific Highway Upgrade

Roads & Maritime Services, NSW

N e wN e w

S o u t hS o u t h

W a l e sW a l e s

ProjectLocation

LEGEND

Proposed Road Alignment

Primary roads

Secondary roads

Rail line

Built-up area

! Towns

Watercourse

NEW

SOUTH

WALESP A C I F I C

O C E A N



Coastal Petaltail is a large dragonfly species thatis distributed from Byfield in Queensland(Theisinger 1999) south to the Grafton district inNew South Wales (DEH 2013a). It occurs inheathland areas, vegetated swamps andwetlands. Breeding takes place in vegetatedcoastal freshwater wetlands and the larvae maytake 10 years or more to develop (DEH 2013a).Adults (and possibly larvae) prey upon otherspecies of dragonfly that occur within theirterritories (Theisinger and Hawking 2006).Adults may be observed when actively flyingaround suitable habitats or resting on vegetation,typically in or adjacent to permanent or semi-permanent wetland breeding sites. The speciesis an exceptionally large dragonfly with distinctiveenlarged terminal lobes at the end of theabdomen (hence the name ‘petaltail’). With suchdiagnostic features, it could not be readilyconfused with any other dragonfly once sighted,apart from other species in the genus Petalura,which are not expected to co-occur.

1.5. PAST SURVEYS

A preliminary survey for Coastal PetaltailDragonfly was conducted by BAAM (2012) inSections 10 and 11 of the Study Area (betweenWardell and Ballina). The survey was performedduring February, near the end of the dragonflyseason and many dragonfly species wereobserved. However, no observations of CoastalPetaltail Dragonfly were made. Habitatassessments were conducted at several sitesand a small proportion of these were identified ascontaining Potential Breeding Habitat for CoastalPetaltail Dragonfly.

2.0 METHODOLOGY

Prior to commencement of the field survey,existing records of Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly(including those still listed under its former name,P. gigantea — now recognised as a differentspecies) were searched in the New South WalesWildlife Atlas (via the Atlas of Living Australia)within a 10 kilometre radius of the Study Area.Aerial imagery and wetland mapping werereviewed to identify potentially suitable wetlandsurvey location sites for the dragonfly.

Targeted surveys and field assessments(detailed below) were conducted at 32 uniquesites along the footprint of the proposed roadcorridor. The extent of survey locations waslimited to where property access was available.

The locations of these sites are shown on Figure2-1. All surveys were performed under BAAM’sNSW Scientific Licence number SL100704.

2.1. TARGETED SURVEY AND SITE

ASSESSMENTS

Active observations and meandering searches inassociation with wetland areas were undertakenat each site to maximise the opportunity ofsighting the distinctive Coastal PetaltailDragonfly. An insect net was carried at all timesduring the survey and dragonflies were capturedon a routine basis to confirm identification.Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly spends much of itstime resting on vegetation on or adjacent towetlands (DEC 2014a). Therefore, vegetationaround each wetland was traversed and scannedclosely to provide the best chance of detectingadults at rest.

Each site was assessed in terms of potentialhabitat value for Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly.Firstly, the vegetation composition was noted,with particular reference to wetland species.Sites were searched carefully for the presence ofpermanent or semi-permanent wetland features,including standing water and dominantaggregations of plants that are typicallyassociated with non-ephemeral wetlandsEleocharis equisetina, E.sphacelata, Lepironiaarticulata, Baumea articulata, Nymphaeacaerulea, Leersia hexandra, Bulboshoenus sp.,Persicaria sp., and Philydrum lanigunosum. Fordetails see DEH 2014b). The presence ofpermanent standing water was noted, as wasany signs of disturbance, such as grazing, waterpollution and/or weed cover. Some basic noteswere made on the general suitability of habitatfor Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly and the diversityof other dragonflies that could potentially act as afood resource for the target species. Moredetailed information on what was recorded ateach site during the habitat assessment can befound in the proforma in Appendix 1.

2.2. HABITAT MAPPING AND CONDITION

SCORES

Based on the outcomes of the targeted surveyand habitat assessment, wetland polygons weremapped into two categories. These were:

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!!!!!

!!

!!!!

!!!!!!

!!

!!

!!!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!!!

!!

!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!

!!

LISMORE

GRAFTON

CASINO BALLINA

WOOLI

YAMBA

ILUKA

CORAKI

TATHAM

TUCABIA

ULMARRA

MACLEAN

HARWOOD

WARDELL

MULLAWAY

RED ROCK

NYMBOIDA

LAWRENCE

COALDALE

WHIPORIE

WOODBURN

WYRALLAH

GLENREAGH

RAPPVILLE

MUMMULGUM

WOOLGOOLGA

BRUSHGROVE

CHATSWORTH

EVANS HEAD

BROADWATER

MONGOGARIE

COPMANHURST

MALLANGANEE

ALSTONVILLE

MINNIE WATER

CAMIRA CREEK

CORINDI BEACH

PILLAR VALLEY

COUTTS CROSSING


153°0'E

153°0'E29

°0'S

29°0

'S

30°0

'S

30°0

'S

© Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd. While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this data, Biodiversity Assessment and Management makes no representat ions or warrant ies about its accuracy, reliability,completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and disclaims all responsibility and all liability (inc luding without limitation liability in negligence) for all expenses, losses, damages (inc luding indirect consequent ial damage) and costswhich might be incurred as a result of the data being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and for any reason.

Document Location: D:\GIS\Jobs\0361-002 Coas tal Petaltail Dragonfly\GIS\MXDs\R eportMaps\Figure 2-1 Location of Surveyand habitat assessment sites.mxdDate: 15/12/2014 8:25:25 AM

Figure:

Title:

Project:

Client:

!Coordinate Sys tem: GCS GDA 1994

Datum: GDA 1994Units : Degree

0 7.5 15 22.5 303.75Kilometers



2-1Location of the survey and habitat assessmentsites within and adjacent to the Study Area



N e wN e w

S o u t hS o u t h

W a l e sW a l e s

ProjectLocation


Primary roads

Secondary roads

Rail line

Built-up area

! Towns

Watercourse

NEW

SOUTH

WALESP A C I F I C

O C E A N

LEGEND

!! Survey and habitat assessment sites

Properties surveyed within alignment



1. Known habitat for Coastal Petaltail whererecords occur associated with wetlandsrepresenting breeding habitat for thedragonfly;

2. Potential breeding habitat for CoastalPetaltail where permanent or semi-permanent wetlands are known orconsidered likely to be present, but wherethe dragonfly has not yet been recorded.

The behaviour and, specifically, the foragingrange of Coastal Petaltail is not well understood,although most records have been in associationwith freshwater wetland areas. As a result, areasthat represent foraging habitat for the dragonflywere not directly captured as part of thismapping methodology. Instead the focus for themapping was on breeding habitat, which iscritical for ensuring the survival of the species. A100 metre buffer was applied to all mappedareas of habitat to capture a nominal area ofpotential foraging habitat around each wetland.

After each habitat assessment, areas of knownor potential breeding habitat were scored by‘habitat condition’ relative to the knownecological requirements of Coastal Petaltaildragonfly as far as they are understood.Polygons were given a score of between 0 and5, with a point being awarded for each one of thefollowing criteria:

o Presence of permanent or semi-permanent

open standing freshwater.

o Freshwater wetland without obvious signs of

pollution.

o Presence of ample aquatic vegetation.

o Presence of fringing vegetation.

o Presence of extensive freshwater swamp

within 100 metres of site.

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. DATABASE RECORDS

The New South Wales Wildlife Atlas contains tworecords attributable to Coastal Petaltail Dragonflythat fall within 10 km of the Study Area. Onerecord is located between Tyndale and Tucabia,approximately 300 m west of the proposedPacific Highway Upgrade corridor. This recordappears to be associated with a small,permanent wetland that ends approximately250 m from the edge of the alignment buffer.The second record is located between Kungala

and Dirty Creek, approximately 4.2 km to thesouthwest of the alignment. The location of eachof these records is shown in Figure 3-1.

3.2. TARGETED SURVEYS

Conditions encountered during the survey werehighly amenable to dragonfly activity, with warmtemperatures and sunny weather occurringpredominantly throughout. A series of storms inthe fortnight prior to commencement of thesurvey most likely contributed to a proliferation ofinvertebrate activity, as observed in the field.

Despite dedicated active searches around allsuitable wetland habitats that were accessedduring the survey, no adult Coastal PetaltailDragonfly individuals were observed. However,many other dragonfly species that couldpotentially act as a food source for the targetspecies were observed, caught and identified onsite (e.g. Photos 1 and 2).

There are three alternative explanations for theabsence of observations of the target speciesduring the present survey, including:

1. Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly is apparentlyabsent from the Study Area;

2. Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly adults had notyet emerged in sufficient numbers to enabledetection during the timeframe of the survey;or

3. Few or no Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly adultshad completed larval development in time tocoincide with the 2014–2015 wet season.

Given the presence of extensive wetlands in theregion and records in the vicinity near Tucabiaand Kungala, it would seem unlikely that CoastalPetaltail Dragonfly would be entirely absent fromthe Study Area. Two surveys have now beenconducted in the Woodburn to Ballina sections ofthe Project (present survey and BAAM (2012))without locating the species, so it may be rare orabsent in that area. However, given thegenerally unpredictable appearance of adults,with larvae taking several years to mature(Theisinger and Hawking 1999), it is more likelythat the second or third scenarios would apply.DEC (2014a) notes that adults emerge from lateOctober to late January, so timing the surveywithin a given wet season can also potentiallyprove challenging.

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

"#

"#

LISMORE

GRAFTON

CASINO BALLINA

WOOLI

YAMBA

ILUKA

CORAKI

TATHAM

TUCABIA

ULMARRA

MACLEAN

HARWOOD

WARDELL

MULLAWAY

RED ROCK

NYMBOIDA

LAWRENCE

COALDALE

WHIPORIE

WOODBURN

WYRALLAH

GLENREAGH

RAPPVILLE

MUMMULGUM

WOOLGOOLGA

BRUSHGROVE

CHATSWORTH

EVANS HEAD

BROADWATER

MONGOGARIE

COPMANHURST

MALLANGANEE

ALSTONVILLE

MINNIE WATER

CAMIRA CREEK

CORINDI BEACH

PILLAR VALLEY

COUTTS CROSSING


153°0'E

153°0'E2

9°0

'S

29

°0'S

30

°0'S

30

°0'S

© Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd. While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this data,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 limitationliability in negligence) for all expenses, losses, damages (including indirect consequential damage) and costswhich might be incurred as a result of the data being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and for any reason.

Document Location: D:\GIS\Jobs\0361-002 Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly\GIS\MXDs\ReportMaps\Figure 3-1 Records of Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly.mxdDate: 18/02/2015 12:43:45 AM

Figure:

Title:

Project:

Client:

!Coordinate System: GCS GDA 1994

Datum: GDA 1994Units: Degree

0 7.5 15 22.5 303.75Kilometers

at A41:703,891Notes: DEM sourced from SRTMP (c) 2014


3-1Records of Coastal Petaltail Dragonflyin the vicinty of the Study Area



N e wN e w

S o u t hS o u t h

W a l e sW a l e s

ProjectLocation


Primary roads

Secondary roads

Rail line

Built-up area

! Towns

Watercourse

NEW

SOUTH

WALES

P A C I F I C

O C E A N

LEGEND

"# Historical Petalura litorea record


Alignment -100m Buffer

"#

"#

Approximately 4.2 kmoutside of alignment buffer

Approximately 300moutside of 100malignment buffer



Photo 1. Slender Skimmer Orthetrum Sabinaat site D23.

Photo 2. Australian Tiger Ictinogomphusaustralis at site D26.

3.3. HABITAT ASSESSMENTS

Site assessments aimed to achieve anunderstanding of habitat values for CoastalPetaltail Dragonfly at a representative variety ofwetland habitats in the Study Area. Sites rangedfrom being assessed as highly suitable to notsuitable. Highly suitable sites were typicallycharacterised by permanent or semi-permanentwetlands with ample aquatic and fringingvegetation, minimal evidence of pollution andreasonable connectivity to adjoining areas ofsuitable habitat. Not suitable sites generallycontained swampland or ephemeral wetlandsthat would not include breeding habitat for thedragonfly. Sites in-between were generallyconsidered to be potentially or marginallysuitable. A detailed summary of the habitatassessments for Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly isprovided in Table 3.1. This summary wasdeveloped from the habitat assessment proforma

worksheets that were completed in the field(example in Appendix 1).

The area of the alignment closest to the nearbyrecord of Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly from nearTucabia was visited during the field survey. Asmall, permanent wetland exists in the vicinity ofthis record. This wetland adjoins a broad gullyalong the same contour that passes through theStudy Area, intersecting with the proposedhighway alignment. A close examination of thisgully revealed a wetland habitat within openforest, partly lined with Paperbark Melaleucaquinquenervia (Site 15 in Table 3.1). The sitecontained a small number of wetland species,but was also infested with Lantana camara andcontained patches of Blady Grass Imperatacylindrica, which indicated that the wetland wasephemeral rather than permanent in the StudyArea. This particular site was thereforeconsidered to contain no suitable breedinghabitat for Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly.

3.4. HABITAT MAPPING AND CONDITION

SCORES

Due to the absence of records of CoastalPetaltail dragonfly during the present survey andabsence of suitable breeding habitat inassociation with a single record from outside ofthe Study Area (see Section 3.3), no knownbreeding habitat was mapped. Interpolation ofsite specific habitat assessment data andextrapolation against aerial imagery led toidentification and mapping of 65 polygons ofPotential Breeding Habitat, covering an area of174 hectares in total (including habitat bufferzones). A summary of site condition scoresassociated with wetlands that were mapped asPotential Breeding Habitat in provided in Table3.2. The habitat mapping and suitability ofsurvey sites based on condition scores ispresented in Figure 3-2.

Given that the Project is located in the NorthernRivers region of New South Wales, it is notsurprising that the Study Area intersects willnumerous wetland features. However, themajority of these are small to medium sizedwetlands. The proposed upgrade corridor hasbeen sited to avoid extensive wetland areas.This is particularly evident in the Kungala,Lavadia–Tucabia and New Italy–Woodburnregions where wetland areas are vast andparticularly conspicuous to the west of the StudyArea.

D09

D32

D31

D13

D11

D12

D10

D08

D07

D06

D05

D04

D02

D01

D03

D30

CORAKI

WARDELL

WOODBURN

EVANS HEAD

BROADWATER

29

°0'S

29

°0'S

© Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd. While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this data,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 withoutlimitation liability in negligence) for all expenses, losses, damages (including indirect consequential damage) and costswhich might be incurred as a result of the data being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and for any reason.

Document Location: D:\GIS\Jobs\0361-002 Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly\GIS\MXDs\ReportMaps\Figure 3-2 a Habitat Mapping.mxdDate: 19/02/2015 10:05:47 AM

Figure:

Title:

Project:

Client:

"Coordinate System: GCS GDA 1994


0 1.5 3 4.5 60.75Kilometers

at A41:168,494


3-2aHabitat mapping for Coastal PetaltailDragonfly within the Study Area





Built-up area

! Towns

LEGEND

Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly


100m Buffer

2

4

4

4

44

4

BROADWATER

4

2

25

3

4

3

2

0

2

A B C D

E F

G H I J

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

K

KEY MAP

0

Habitat Assessment

Score 0

2

3

4

5

1

D14

MACLEAN

HARWOOD

CHATSWORTH


Document Location: D:\GIS\Jobs\0361-002 Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly\GIS\MXDs\ReportMaps\Figure 3-2 b Habitat Mapping.mxdDate: 18/02/2015 12:21:12 AM

Figure:

Title:

Project:

Client:



0 1 2 3 40.5Kilometers

at A41:106,201


3-2bHabitat mapping for Coastal PetaltailDragonfly within the Study Area





Built-up area

! Towns

LEGEND



100m Buffer

Habitat Assessment

Score

1

2

3

4

5

3

A

B

C

KEY MAP

B

A

C

D16

D20

D19

D18

D17

D15

TUCABIA

ULMARRA

PILLAR VALLEY


Document Location: D:\GIS\Jobs\0361-002 Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly\GIS\MXDs\ReportMaps\Figure 3-2 c Habitat Mapping.mxdDate: 18/02/2015 12:33:54 AM

Figure:

Title:

Project:

Client:



0 0.85 1.7 2.55 3.40.425Kilometers

at A41:82,886


3-2cHabitat mapping for Coastal PetaltailDragonfly within the Study Area





Built-up area

! Towns

LEGEND



100m Buffer

Habitat Assessment

Score

1

2

3

4

5

3

2

PILLAR VALLEY

5

3

2

A B

C

KEY MAP

B

A

5

C

D

D

E

E

D29

D28

D27

D26

D25

D24

D23

D22

D21

RED ROCK

CORINDI BEACH

153°0'E

30

°0'S

30

°0'S

15

3°0

'E


Document Location: D:\GIS\Jobs\0361-002 Coastal Petaltail Dragonfly\GIS\MXDs\ReportMaps\Figure 3-2 d Habitat Mapping.mxdDate: 18/02/2015 12:41:19 AM

Figure:

Title:

Project:

Client:


3-2dHabitat mapping for Coastal PetaltailDragonfly within the Study Area





Built-up area

! Towns

LEGEND



100m Buffer

Habitat Assessment

Score

1

2

3

4

5

4

4

4

KEY MAP

A

C

D

1

5

2

5

2

B

D

E

Coordinate System: GCS GDA 1994Datum: GDA 1994

Units: Degree

0 1 2 3 40.5Kilometers

at A41:125,000

5

D

A CB

E

F

F

D

Ta

rge

ted

Su

rvey

and

Ha

bita

tA

ssessm

en

tfo

rC

oa

sta

lP

eta

ltail

Dra

go

nfly

Woo

lgo

olg

ato

Ba

llin

aP

aci

ficH

igh

wa

yU

pg

rad

efo

rR

oa

ds

an

dM

ari

tim

eS

erv

ice

s

BA

AM

Pty

Ltd

Pa

ge

12

File

No.

036

1-0

02

Dra

ftA

Ta

ble

3.1

.H

ab

ita

tA

ss

es

sm

en

tfo

rC

oas

talP

eta

lta

ilD

rag

on

fly

inth

eS

tud

yA

rea

Sit

eD

rag

on

flie

so

bse

rved

Sit

eD

esc

rip

tio

nR

ep

resen

tati

ve

Sit

eP

ho

to

D01

Appro

xim

ate

lysix

sp

ecie

sobserv

ed,

inclu

din

gD

ipla

cod

es

sp.,

Ort

hetr

um

cale

donic

um

and

Austr

alia

nE

mera

ldH

em

icord

ulia

austr

alia

e.

This

perm

anentsta

nd

ing

wate

rap

pe

ars

tobe

asu

itab

leP

ote

nti

alB

reed

ing

Hab

ita

t.A

nart

ific

ialp

erm

anent

open

wate

rbod

ystr

etc

hes

from

the

nort

hto

the

south

on

the

weste

rnexte

nt

of

the

pro

pert

yw

ith

am

ple

frin

gin

gve

geta

tio

n,in

clu

din

gM

ela

leuca

quin

que

nerv

ia,

Eucaly

ptu

sro

busta

,E

mp

od

ism

am

inus,E

nto

lasia

marg

inata

,L

epto

sp

erm

um

sp.,

Ba

eckea

frute

scens

an

dB

alo

skio

nte

tra

phyllu

m.

D02

3–4

sp

ecie

s,

inclu

din

gR

hyoth

em

isphylli

s,T

ram

ea

loe

wii,

Ort

hetr

um

cale

donic

um

.

Am

odifie

de

nvironm

entin

an

old

quarr

ysite

has

beco

me

asuitable

Po

ten

tialB

reed

ing

Hab

itat

with

perm

anent

freshw

ate

rand

am

ple

vege

tation.

Sed

ge

sp

ecie

sin

clu

de

Juncus

continuus,N

ym

ph

aea

caeru

lea,Lycop

odie

llacern

ua,

Bau

me

asp.,

Mela

leuca

quin

que

nerv

ia,

Lepto

sperm

um

sp.,

Me

lale

uca

salic

ina

an

dL

epiro

nia

art

icula

ta.

Lim

ited

we

tland

co

nnectivity

ma

yre

duce

hab

itatvalu

ew

ithin

abro

ader

lan

dscape

conte

xt.

Ta

rge

ted

Su

rvey

and

Ha

bita

tA

ssessm

en

tfo

rC

oa

sta

lP

eta

ltail

Dra

go

nfly

Woo

lgo

olg

ato

Ba

llin

aP

aci

ficH

igh

wa

yU

pg

rad

efo

rR

oa

ds

an

dM

ari

tim

eS

erv

ice

s

BA

AM

Pty

Ltd

Pa

ge

13

File

No.

036

1-0

02

Dra

ftA

Sit

eD

rag

on

flie

so

bse

rved

Sit

eD

esc

rip

tio

nR

ep

resen

tati

ve

Sit

eP

ho

to

D03

3–4

sp

ecie

s,

inclu

din

gC

rocoth

em

isnig

rifr

ons.

The

site

conta

ins

goo

dhe

ath

conn

ectivi

tybut

limite

dw

etland

hab

itat.

The

pre

se

nce

of

sphag

num

moss

ind

icate

spre

sence

of

som

esem

i-perm

anent

wate

rbody;

Po

ten

tialB

reed

ing

Hab

ita

t.

The

site

ischara

cte

rised

by

ope

nw

et

he

ath

sp

eci

es

inclu

din

gM

ela

leuca

quin

qu

enerv

ia,

Baeckea

fru

tescen

s,Lepto

sperm

um

trin

erv

ium

,Lepto

sperm

um

livers

idge

i,B

alo

skio

npa

llens,G

ah

nia

sie

beri

an

a,B

alo

ski

on

tetr

aphyllu

m,

Lepto

sperm

um

sem

ibaccatu

m,

Boro

nia

falc

ifolia

,B

oro

nia

safr

olif

era

,N

em

ato

lepis

squ

am

ea

and

Em

pod

ism

am

inus.

D04

Tw

in-s

pot

Hunte

rA

ustr

ogo

mphus

mela

leucae.

An

exte

nsiv

eare

aof

und

istu

rbed

sem

i-perm

anent

Mela

leuca

sw

am

p,la

ckin

gare

as

of

ope

nsta

ndin

gw

ate

r.N

evert

he

less,oth

er

ha

bitat

featu

res

ind

icate

Po

ten

tia

lB

reed

ing

Hab

itat.

Fringin

gve

geta

tion

inclu

de

sX

anth

orr

ho

ea

fulv

a,

Balo

skio

npa

llens,a

nd

Ba

loskio

nte

trap

hyllu

m,

Em

pod

ism

am

inus,G

ah

nia

sie

beri

an

a,

Banksia

ae

mu

la,

Baeckea

frute

scens,

En

dia

ndra

sie

beri

an

dN

em

ato

lepis

squam

ea.

Ta

rge

ted

Su

rvey

and

Ha

bita

tA

ssessm

en

tfo

rC

oa

sta

lP

eta

ltail

Dra

go

nfly

Woo

lgo

olg

ato

Ba

llin

aP

aci

ficH

igh

wa

yU

pg

rad

efo

rR

oa

ds

an

dM

ari

tim

eS

erv

ice

s

BA

AM

Pty

Ltd

Pa

ge

14

File

No.

036

1-0

02

Dra

ftA

Sit

eD

rag

on

flie

so

bse

rved

Sit

eD

esc

rip

tio

nR

ep

resen

tati

ve

Sit

eP

ho

to

D05

Austr

alia

nE

mera

ld,O

rth

etr

um

cale

donic

um

,R

hyoth

em

isphylli

s.

This

isola

ted

open

sta

nd

ing

wate

rw

ithfr

ingin

gw

ethe

ath

veg

eta

tio

nap

pears

tobe

hig

hly

su

itab

leP

ote

nti

al

Bre

ed

ing

Hab

itat

and

isbro

ad

lyco

nnecte

dto

the

surr

oundin

gw

eth

eath

veg

eta

tion

com

munity

toth

ee

ast

and

the

nort

h.W

ithth

eexception

of

this

wate

rbo

dy,

the

rem

ain

der

of

the

site

isdo

min

ate

db

ym

ow

nE

mpod

ism

am

inus

an

ddo

es

not

supp

ort

an

yn

ote

wort

hy

bre

edin

ghab

itat.

Fringin

gve

geta

tion

inclu

de

sM

.qu

inq

ue

nerv

ia,

Lepto

sperm

um

trin

erv

ium

,B

aeckea

frute

scens,G

ahn

iasie

beri

an

a,E

mp

odis

ma

min

us,X

anth

orr

hoe

afu

lva,

Lycopod

iella

cern

ua,

Ne

ma

tole

pis

squ

am

ea,

Ba

loski

on

tetr

aphyllu

m,

Me

lale

uca

no

dosa

and

Mela

leuca

pachyphylla

.

D06

Dip

lacod

es

sp.

This

habitatconta

ins

ah

ea

vily

po

llute

dw

etla

nd

with

no

obvio

us

connectivity

toth

ebro

ad

er

landscape

.T

he

wetland

app

ears

tobe

an

ephem

era

ldra

ina

ge

line

and

isth

ere

fore

no

tsu

itab

leas

bre

edin

ghab

itat.

Clo

sed

rain

fore

stfo

restto

the

Nort

han

dP

ap

erb

ark

sw

am

pto

the

south

with

no

pote

ntialbre

edin

gh

abitat.

The

are

ais

aff

ecte

db

yexo

ticw

ee

ds.

Ta

rge

ted

Su

rvey

and

Ha

bita

tA

ssessm

en

tfo

rC

oa

sta

lP

eta

ltail

Dra

go

nfly

Woo

lgo

olg

ato

Ba

llin

aP

aci

ficH

igh

wa

yU

pg

rad

efo

rR

oa

ds

an

dM

ari

tim

eS

erv

ice

s

BA

AM

Pty

Ltd

Pa

ge

15

File

No.

036

1-0

02

Dra

ftA

Sit

eD

rag

on

flie

so

bse

rved

Sit

eD

esc

rip

tio

nR

ep

resen

tati

ve

Sit

eP

ho

to

D07

Dip

lacod

es

sp.,

Austr

alia

nE

mera

ld,

Rhyoth

em

issp

p.

Po

ten

tialB

reed

ing

Hab

ita

texis

tsin

the

form

of

sem

i-perm

anent

wetlan

ds.T

he

wetlands

occur

ina

landscape

dis

turb

ed

by

gra

zin

g,

with

bro

adly

limite

da

nd

patc

hy

connectivity

with

som

eaqu

atic

and

frin

gin

gvegeta

tion.

Wetla

nd

specie

sin

clu

de

Gahn

iasp.,

Ba

um

ea

sp.,

Lep

iron

iaart

icula

ta,

Cyperu

ssp.,

Me

lale

uca

quin

qu

enerv

ia,S

choe

nop

lectu

sm

ucro

natu

s,Is

ole

pis

nodosa

,an

dJuncus

co

ntin

uus.

Clo

sed

Paperb

ark

sw

am

pfo

restto

the

we

st

with

Cabb

age

Pa

lm,S

wam

pS

he-o

ak

and

Ch

eese

Tre

e.

D08

Dip

lacod

es

sp.

This

fenced

perm

anent

wetlan

dw

ith

open

sta

ndin

gw

ate

rpro

vid

es

marg

ina

lP

ote

nti

alB

reed

ing

Hab

itat

due

toits

hig

htu

rbid

ity

an

dre

lative

isola

tio

nw

ithin

adis

turb

ed

gra

zing

landscape

.F

rin

gin

gvegeta

tion

inclu

de

Le

piro

nia

art

icula

ta,

Me

lale

uca

qu

inq

uenerv

ia,

Melic

op

ee

llery

an

a,

Leers

iahexa

ndra

,P

ers

icari

asp.a

nd

Bau

mea

sp.

Ta

rge

ted

Su

rvey

and

Ha

bita

tA

ssessm

en

tfo

rC

oa

sta

lP

eta

ltail

Dra

go

nfly

Woo

lgo

olg

ato

Ba

llin

aP

aci

ficH

igh

wa

yU

pg

rad

efo

rR

oa

ds

an

dM

ari

tim

eS

erv

ice

s

BA

AM

Pty

Ltd

Pa

ge

16

File

No.

036

1-0

02

Dra

ftA

Sit

eD

rag

on

flie

so

bse

rved

Sit

eD

esc

rip

tio

nR

ep

resen

tati

ve

Sit

eP

ho

to

D09

Ove

rcastcond

itions

notco

nduciv

eto

dra

go

nfly

activity.

This

Sw

am

pS

cle

rop

hyl

lha

bita

tis

no

tsu

itab

lefo

rbre

ed

ing

du

eto

the

absence

of

aperm

anent

or

sem

i-perm

anent

wetlan

d.T

here

are

exte

nsiv

ew

etla

nds

toth

ew

est;

ho

we

ver,

itis

appro

xim

ate

ly50

0m

from

this

are

a.

Exis

ting

veg

eta

tio

nin

clu

de

sE

ucaly

ptu

ste

reticorn

is,

Casuari

na

gla

uca,

Mela

leu

ca

quin

qu

enerv

iaa

nd

Impera

tacylin

drica

.

D10

Tw

in-s

pot

Hunte

rA

ustr

ogo

mphus

mela

leucae.

The

wetla

nd

was

assessed

as

be

ing

eph

em

era

land

there

fore

isn

ot

su

itab

lefo

rbre

ed

ing

hab

itat.

Specie

sin

clu

de

Lep

iron

iaart

icu

lata

,P

hily

dru

mla

nu

gin

osum

,B

au

mea

sp.a

nd

Pers

icari

asp.

with

open

Pa

perb

ark

wood

lan

dto

the

westa

nd

an

exte

nsiv

eep

hem

era

lw

etland

toth

en

ort

h-e

ast.

Ta

rge

ted

Su

rvey

and

Ha

bita

tA

ssessm

en

tfo

rC

oa

sta

lP

eta

ltail

Dra

go

nfly

Woo

lgo

olg

ato

Ba

llin

aP

aci

ficH

igh

wa

yU

pg

rad

efo

rR

oa

ds

an

dM

ari

tim

eS

erv

ice

s

BA

AM

Pty

Ltd

Pa

ge

17

File

No.

036

1-0

02

Dra

ftA

Sit

eD

rag

on

flie

so

bse

rved

Sit

eD

esc

rip

tio

nR

ep

resen

tati

ve

Sit

eP

ho

to

D11

Tra

mea

sp.,

Ort

hetr

um

ca

ledon

icum

,D

ipla

cod

es

sp.

Po

ten

tialB

reed

ing

Hab

ita

texis

tsw

ithin

larg

eart

ific

ial

dam

with

am

ple

frin

gin

gve

geta

tio

n.T

here

isp

atc

hy

fora

gin

gco

nnectivity

toth

enort

hin

toclo

se

dR

ed

Maho

ga

ny

and

Bro

adle

ave

dP

aperb

ark

fore

stw

ith

sed

ge

specie

sin

de

pre

ssed

are

as.

Exis

ting

veg

eta

tio

nin

clu

de

sLepiro

nia

art

icula

ta,

Phily

dru

mla

nu

gin

osum

,N

ym

pha

ea

ca

eru

lea

and

Ele

ocharis

equ

isetina.

D12

One

sm

all

un

ide

ntif

ied

spe

cie

sobserv

ed.

No

tsu

itab

lefo

rbre

edin

gd

ue

tode

nse

vege

tation

chara

cte

rised

by

clo

se

dM

ela

leuca

sw

am

pw

ith

limited

and

sp

ars

esem

i-perm

anentw

etlan

din

dic

ato

rs.

The

site

exhib

ited

pa

tch

yco

nn

ectivi

tyto

pote

ntia

llysuitab

lehab

itat

toth

esou

th(D

11)

and

nort

h.

Exis

ting

veg

eta

tio

nin

clu

de

sLepiro

nia

art

icula

ta,

Ba

um

ea

sp.,

Ble

chn

um

ind

icum

,M

ela

leuca

qu

inque

nerv

ia,

Loph

oste

mon

su

aveole

ns

and

Eucaly

ptu

sro

busta

.

Ta

rge

ted

Su

rvey

and

Ha

bita

tA

ssessm

en

tfo

rC

oa

sta

lP

eta

ltail

Dra

go

nfly

Woo

lgo

olg

ato

Ba

llin

aP

aci

ficH

igh

wa

yU

pg

rad

efo

rR

oa

ds

an

dM

ari

tim

eS

erv

ice

s

BA

AM

Pty

Ltd

Pa

ge

18

File

No.

036

1-0

02

Dra

ftA

Sit

eD

rag

on

flie

so

bse

rved

Sit

eD

esc

rip

tio

nR

ep

resen

tati

ve

Sit

eP

ho

to

D13

Abri

ef

sig

hting

of

two

sm

all

specie

s.

Assessed

as

be

ing

no

tsu

itab

lefo

rbre

ed

ing

du

eto

poor

connectivity

tosurr

ou

nd

ing

wetland,

severe

dis

turb

ance

and

wate

rero

sio

na

lon

gcre

ek

bank.

Exis

ting

veg

eta

tio

nin

clu

de

sLom

andra

lon

gifolia

,P

hily

dru

mla

nu

gin

osum

,B

lechnum

indic

um

,S

tylid

ium

sp.,

Cyperu

ssp.,

Me

lale

uca

qu

inq

uen

erv

ia,

Loph

oste

mon

su

aveole

ns,

Eucaly

ptu

ssid

ero

phlo

ia,

Eucaly

ptu

ste

retic

orn

is,A

lphito

nia

excels

aan

dE

ucaly

ptu

scarn

ea.

D14

Dip

lacod

es

sp.

Marg

ina

lPo

ten

tialB

reed

ing

Hab

itat

exis

tsw

ithin

adra

inage

line

runn

ing

nort

hto

south

conn

ecte

dto

atr

ibuta

ryof

Cla

rence

Riv

er

toth

enort

h-w

est.

Ho

we

ver

the

bro

ad

er

landscape

ise

vidently

dis

turb

ed

by

livesto

ckand

pote

ntialeutr

oph

icatio

nin

toth

ew

ate

rwa

y,w

ith

limite

dcon

nectivity.

Exis

ting

veg

eta

tio

nin

clu

de

sE

leocharis

equ

isetina

and

Juncus

usita

tus.

Ta

rge

ted

Su

rvey

and

Ha

bita

tA

ssessm

en

tfo

rC

oa

sta

lP

eta

ltail

Dra

go

nfly

Woo

lgo

olg

ato

Ba

llin

aP

aci

ficH

igh

wa

yU

pg

rad

efo

rR

oa

ds

an

dM

ari

tim

eS

erv

ice

s

BA

AM

Pty

Ltd

Pa

ge

19

File

No.

036

1-0

02

Dra

ftA

Sit

eD

rag

on

flie

so

bse

rved

Sit

eD

esc

rip

tio

nR

ep

resen

tati

ve

Sit

eP

ho

to

D15

Pre

dom

inan

tly

ove

rcastco

nditio

ns

not

conduciv

eto

dra

go

nfly

activi

ty.

Aw

etla

nd

ispre

sent

atth

issite

and

was

assesse

das

bein

ge

phem

era

lrath

er

tha

nsem

i-perm

anent.

Wetheath

specie

sdo

occur

inth

egu

lly;

ho

we

ver

itis

infe

ste

dw

ith

Lanta

na

and

itis

co

nsid

ere

dto

be

no

tsu

itab

leas

abre

ed

ing

ha

bitatfo

rC

oasta

lPeta

ltail

Dra

go

nfly.

The

only

sta

ndin

gw

ate

robserv

ed

adja

centto

this

site

was

on

aneig

hb

ouri

ng

pro

pert

y,h

ea

vily

po

llute

db

ycatt

lea

nd

alm

ostentir

ely

de

void

of

aq

uatic

and

frin

gin

gve

geta

tio

n.

Exis

ting

veg

eta

tio

nin

clu

de

sG

ahnia

sp.,

Pte

ridiu

mescule

ntu

m,

Ba

loskio

nte

traphyllu

m,T

rochocarp

ala

uri

na,

Cis

sus

hypo

gla

uca,

Flin

ders

iaschottia

na

,E

laeocarp

us

retic

ula

tus,C

yperu

ssp.a

nd

Impera

tacylin

drica

.

D16

Ort

hetr

um

ca

led

on

icum

.A

sem

i-perm

anent

wetland

pro

vid

es

su

itable

Po

ten

tial

Bre

ed

ing

Hab

itat.

The

we

tlan

dap

pears

toha

vego

od

connectivity

toth

eso

uth

.

Evid

ence

of

sta

ndin

gw

ate

rand

wetlan

dspecie

sin

clu

ded

Lep

iron

iaart

icula

ta,

Dro

sera

sp.,

Lycop

od

iella

cern

ua,

Cyperu

ssp.a

nd

Phily

dru

mla

nug

inosu

m.

Ta

rge

ted

Su

rvey

and

Ha

bita

tA

ssessm

en

tfo

rC

oa

sta

lP

eta

ltail

Dra

go

nfly

Woo

lgo

olg

ato

Ba

llin

aP

aci

ficH

igh

wa

yU

pg

rad

efo

rR

oa

ds

an

dM

ari

tim

eS

erv

ice

s

BA

AM

Pty

Ltd

Pa

ge

20

File

No.

036

1-0

02

Dra

ftA

Sit

eD

rag

on

flie

so

bse

rved

Sit

eD

esc

rip

tio

nR

ep

resen

tati

ve

Sit

eP

ho

to

D17

Dip

lacod

es

sp.,

Ort

he

trum

cale

donic

um

Tra

mea

sp.,

Austr

alia

nT

iger

Ictin

ogom

phus

austr

alis

,S

lender

Skim

mer

Ort

hetr

um

sab

ina

.

App

ears

tobe

hig

hly

su

itab

leas

aP

ote

nti

alB

reed

ing

Hab

itat,

with

pre

sence

of

one

open

wate

rbod

ya

nd

reasona

ble

conn

ectivi

tyto

the

nort

ha

nd

nort

h-w

est.

Adiv

ers

era

nge

of

dra

gonfly

specie

sw

ere

record

ed

,in

dic

ating

am

ple

food

sourc

efo

rth

eC

oasta

lP

eta

ltail

Dra

gonfly.

Exis

ting

veg

eta

tio

nin

clu

de

sLepiro

nia

art

icula

ta,

Casuari

na

gla

uca,L

oph

oste

mon

suaveo

lens

and

Care

xim

pre

ssa.

D18

Se

vera

lspecie

s,in

clu

din

gS

lend

er

Skim

mer

Ort

hetr

um

sa

bin

aW

etter

part

sof

this

wa

llum

heath

land

com

munity

app

ear

toconta

inm

odera

tely

su

itable

Po

ten

tial

Bre

ed

ing

Hab

itat.

Veg

eta

tio

ncom

munity

inclu

des

Ba

um

ea

junce

a,Is

ole

pis

nodosa

,S

ch

oen

us

bre

vifoliu

s,C

yperu

ssp.,

Ble

chnu

min

dic

um

,E

nto

lasia

marg

ina

ta,L

epto

sp

erm

um

sp.,

Mela

leuca

thym

ifolia

,M

ela

leuca

pachyphylla

,B

alo

skio

nte

traphyllu

m,

Erioca

ulo

nsp

.,M

ela

leuca

sie

beri

and

Juncus

usita

tus.

Good

weth

eath

land

co

nne

ctiv

ity

from

nort

h-e

ast

tosouth

-west.

Ta

rge

ted

Su

rvey

and

Ha

bita

tA

ssessm

en

tfo

rC

oa

sta

lP

eta

ltail

Dra

go

nfly

Woo

lgo

olg

ato

Ba

llin

aP

aci

ficH

igh

wa

yU

pg

rad

efo

rR

oa

ds

an

dM

ari

tim

eS

erv

ice

s

BA

AM

Pty

Ltd

Pa

ge

21

File

No.

036

1-0

02

Dra

ftA

Sit

eD

rag

on

flie

so

bse

rved

Sit

eD

esc

rip

tio

nR

ep

resen

tati

ve

Sit

eP

ho

to

D19

Dip

lacod

es

he

mato

des,O

rthetr

um

cale

donic

um

.P

ote

nti

alB

reed

ing

Hab

ita

texis

tsw

ithin

perm

anent

cre

ek

runnin

ge

astto

west;

ho

we

ver

som

eevid

ence

of

dis

turb

ance

by

livesto

ck

isevid

ent.

Conn

ectivi

tyto

surr

oundin

gw

etlan

ds

app

ears

tobe

patc

hy.

Exis

ting

veg

eta

tio

nin

clu

de

sC

are

xappre

ssa,

Nym

ph

aea

caeru

lea,Juncus

usita

tus,

Phily

dru

mla

nu

gin

osum

,B

au

mea

art

icu

lata

,C

yp

eru

ssp.,

Pers

icari

asp.,

Lu

dw

igia

sp.and

frin

gin

gve

geta

tio

nof

Casuarin

ag

lauca.

D20

Se

vera

lspecie

sin

clu

din

gS

len

der

Skim

mer

Ort

hetr

um

sab

ina

.H

igh

lysuitab

leP

ote

nti

alB

reed

ing

Hab

itat

exis

tsw

ithin

an

exte

nsiv

ew

etland

an

dcre

ek

str

etc

hin

gfr

om

eastto

west,

with

pre

se

nce

of

am

ple

frin

gin

gvegeta

tion

and

aqua

ticve

geta

tion

.

Exis

ting

veg

eta

tio

nin

clu

de

sP

hily

dru

mla

nug

inosum

,Juncus

usita

tus,Lu

dw

igia

sp.,

Pers

icaria

sp

.,E

leochari

sequ

isetina,

Ele

ochari

sspha

cela

ta,Le

ers

iahexandra

with

frin

gin

gvegeta

tion

of

Mela

leuca

alte

rnifo

lia.

Ta

rge

ted

Su

rvey

and

Ha

bita

tA

ssessm

en

tfo

rC

oa

sta

lP

eta

ltail

Dra

go

nfly

Woo

lgo

olg

ato

Ba

llin

aP

aci

ficH

igh

wa

yU

pg

rad

efo

rR

oa

ds

an

dM

ari

tim

eS

erv

ice

s

BA

AM

Pty

Ltd

Pa

ge

22

File

No.

036

1-0

02

Dra

ftA

Sit

eD

rag

on

flie

so

bse

rved

Sit

eD

esc

rip

tio

nR

ep

resen

tati

ve

Sit

eP

ho

to

D21

Se

vera

lsm

all

tom

ediu

m-s

ized

specie

s,

inclu

din

gD

ipla

cod

es

sp.,

Ort

hetr

um

cale

donic

um

,T

ram

ea

sp.,

Sle

nd

er

Skim

mer

Ort

hetr

um

sab

ina

.

Hig

hly

suitab

leP

ote

nti

alB

reed

ing

Hab

itat

with

am

ple

frin

gin

gan

daq

uatic

vegeta

tion

.T

he

site

buff

er

falls

just

outs

ide

of

the

Stu

dy

Are

aa

nd

isth

ere

fore

notlik

ely

tobe

aff

ecte

db

yth

eh

igh

wa

yup

gra

de.

D22

One

sm

all

un

ide

ntif

ied

spe

cie

s.

Po

ten

tialB

reed

ing

Hab

ita

texis

tsw

ithin

ap

erm

anent

wate

rbo

dy

an

dexp

ansiv

ew

etland

toth

ew

est

.T

he

are

aappe

ars

tocon

tain

good

frin

gin

gve

geta

tio

na

nd

sed

ge

veg

eta

tio

n.T

he

ha

bitat

isu

ndis

turb

ed

with

the

exce

ption

of

Seta

ria

sph

acela

ta(P

ige

on

Gra

ss)

intr

usio

n.

Exis

ting

veg

eta

tio

nin

clu

de

sLepiro

nia

art

icula

ta,

Ele

ocharis

sp

hace

lata

,B

au

mea

sp.,

Ble

ch

num

indic

um

,Lepto

sperm

um

sp.,

Euca

lyptu

sro

busta

and

Mela

leuca

alte

rnifo

lia.

Ta

rge

ted

Su

rvey

and

Ha

bita

tA

ssessm

en

tfo

rC

oa

sta

lP

eta

ltail

Dra

go

nfly

Woo

lgo

olg

ato

Ba

llin

aP

aci

ficH

igh

wa

yU

pg

rad

efo

rR

oa

ds

an

dM

ari

tim

eS

erv

ice

s

BA

AM

Pty

Ltd

Pa

ge

23

File

No.

036

1-0

02

Dra

ftA

Sit

eD

rag

on

flie

so

bse

rved

Sit

eD

esc

rip

tio

nR

ep

resen

tati

ve

Sit

eP

ho

to

D23

Dip

lacod

es

bip

uncta

ta,O

rthetr

um

cale

donic

um

,S

lend

er

Skim

mer

Ort

hetr

um

sabin

a.

Marg

ina

lPo

ten

tialB

reed

ing

Hab

itat

exis

tsw

ithin

asm

all

perm

anent

wate

rbod

ysituate

din

the

landsc

ape;

ho

we

ver,

the

wetlan

dis

evid

ently

de

gra

de

db

yfa

cto

rsassocia

ted

with

gra

zing

(i.e

.tu

rbid

ity,

com

pact

ion).

Modera

teco

nnectivity

toa

cre

ek

toth

enort

hw

est

.

Exis

ting

veg

eta

tio

nin

clu

de

sB

au

mea

juncea,

Ph

ilydru

m.

lan

ugin

osu

m,Juncus

usita

tus

and

frin

gin

gve

geta

tion

of

Mela

leuca

sp.

D24

Hig

hD

rag

onfly

activi

tyand

div

ers

ity,

inclu

din

gD

ipla

cod

es

bip

un

cta

ta,

Ort

hetr

um

ca

led

on

icum

,S

lender

Skim

mer

Ort

hetr

um

sa

bin

a.

Whils

tth

issite

exh

ibited

po

or

connectivity

tow

etlan

ds

inth

ebro

ad

er

landscape

,tw

oart

ific

iald

am

sappear

topro

vid

ehig

hly

su

itable

Po

ten

tialB

reed

ing

Hab

itat.

The

wetland

are

as

are

not

consid

ere

dlik

ely

tobe

directly

aff

ecte

db

yth

eh

igh

wa

yup

gra

de.

Exis

ting

veg

eta

tio

nin

clu

de

sLepto

sp

erm

um

sem

ibaccatu

m,

Banksia

sp

inulo

sa,

Mela

leuca

sie

beri

,E

pacris

sp.,

Dod

ona

ea

vis

cosa,C

onosperm

um

taxifo

lium

,D

am

pie

rastr

icta

,P

ers

oo

nia

sp.,

Gle

ich

en

iadic

arp

a,

Lycopo

die

llacern

ua,E

nto

lasia

marg

inata

,G

ahnia

sp.,

Euca

lyptu

sre

sin

ifera

,Lo

ph

oste

mo

nsuaveole

ns

an

dE

ucaly

ptu

spla

nchon

iana.

Ta

rge

ted

Su

rvey

and

Ha

bita

tA

ssessm

en

tfo

rC

oa

sta

lP

eta

ltail

Dra

go

nfly

Woo

lgo

olg

ato

Ba

llin

aP

aci

ficH

igh

wa

yU

pg

rad

efo

rR

oa

ds

an

dM

ari

tim

eS

erv

ice

s

BA

AM

Pty

Ltd

Pa

ge

24

File

No.

036

1-0

02

Dra

ftA

Sit

eD

rag

on

flie

so

bse

rved

Sit

eD

esc

rip

tio

nR

ep

resen

tati

ve

Sit

eP

ho

to

D25

Dip

lacod

es

bip

uncta

taC

onsid

ere

dto

be

no

tsu

ita

ble

for

bre

ed

ing.

One

very

small

iso

late

dsem

i-perm

anent

wate

rbo

dy

with

alo

wdiv

ers

ity

of

sedg

evege

tatio

nw

as

record

ed

within

adis

turb

ed

padd

ock.

Wetla

nd

specie

sin

clu

de

Juncus

usita

tus,

Pers

icaria

sp.,

Phily

dru

mla

nu

gin

osum

,E

leocharis

equ

isetina

,C

are

xappre

ssa

and

Tri

glo

chin

sp

.

D26

Dip

lacod

es

bip

unca

ta,O

rth

etr

um

cale

donic

um

,T

ram

ea

loew

ii,R

hyoth

em

isgra

ph

ipte

ra,

Austr

alia

nT

iger

Ictin

ogom

phus

austr

alis

,A

ustr

alia

nE

mpero

rH

em

ianax

papu

ensis

.

Ala

rge

art

ific

iald

am

appea

rsto

be

hig

hly

su

itab

leas

aP

ote

nti

alB

reed

ing

Hab

ita

tdue

toab

un

dant

food

sourc

e,fr

ingin

gve

geta

tio

nand

am

ple

wetlan

dve

geta

tio

n.

Sem

i-perm

anentw

etland

pro

vides

modera

teh

ab

itat

connectivity

toth

eso

uth

.

Wetla

nd

veg

eta

tion

inclu

de

sB

au

mea

art

icu

lata

,C

are

xappre

ssa,

Ph

ilydru

mla

nu

gin

osum

,E

leoch

aris

eq

uis

etina

with

frin

gin

gve

geta

tion

con

sis

ting

of

Mela

leuca

quin

qu

enerv

ia,E

ucaly

ptu

sro

busta

and

C.g

lauca

.

Ta

rge

ted

Su

rvey

and

Ha

bita

tA

ssessm

en

tfo

rC

oa

sta

lP

eta

ltail

Dra

go

nfly

Woo

lgo

olg

ato

Ba

llin

aP

aci

ficH

igh

wa

yU

pg

rad

efo

rR

oa

ds

an

dM

ari

tim

eS

erv

ice

s

BA

AM

Pty

Ltd

Pa

ge

25

File

No.

036

1-0

02

Dra

ftA

Sit

eD

rag

on

flie

so

bse

rved

Sit

eD

esc

rip

tio

nR

ep

resen

tati

ve

Sit

eP

ho

to

D27

Se

vera

lspecie

s,in

clu

din

gD

ipla

cod

es

bip

uncata

,A

ustr

ogo

mph

us

mela

leucae.

This

clo

sed

Me

lale

uca-S

wa

mp/S

he-o

ak

woo

dla

nd

isconsid

ere

dto

be

no

tsu

ita

ble

as

abre

ed

ing

ha

bitatd

ue

tola

ck

ofsem

i-perm

anentto

perm

anent

wa

terb

od

y.

Baccharis

halim

ifolia

ispre

sentin

pa

tches.

Exis

ting

veg

eta

tio

nin

clu

de

sS

choen

us

bre

vifoliu

s,

Isole

pis

no

dosa,T

hem

ed

atr

iandra

,C

are

xappre

ssa

,P

aspa

lum

sp.,

Dodo

na

ea

vis

cosa,P

oly

meri

asp.,

Impera

tacylin

drica

an

dLo

mandra

long

ifolia

.

D28

Ort

hetr

um

ca

led

on

icum

,S

lender

Skim

mer

Ort

hetr

um

sa

bin

a,

Austr

og

om

phus

mela

leuca

e.

Aseries

of

art

ific

ialdam

sappears

tobe

hig

hly

su

itable

as

aP

ote

nti

alB

reed

ing

Hab

itat.

This

hab

itat

isconnecte

dto

aclo

se

dM

ela

leuca

sw

am

pto

the

west;

ho

we

ver

there

isno

op

en

sta

nd

ing

wate

rw

ithin

the

bro

ad

er

landscape

conte

xt.

Appro

xim

ate

lyha

lfof

the

dam

isw

ithin

100

metr

ebuff

er

of

the

hig

hw

ay

upgra

de.

Wetla

nd

veg

eta

tion

inclu

de

sE

leocharis

equ

isetina,

Cyperu

ssp.,

Phily

dru

mla

nugin

osum

,B

aum

ea

mue

lleri,

Bau

mea

art

icu

lata

with

low

lyin

gfr

ingin

gM

ela

leuca

an

dS

wam

p-b

ox

wood

land.

D29

None

observ

ed.

Corin

diC

reek

exte

nds

from

eastto

west,

inte

rsectin

gth

eS

tud

yA

rea.

The

hab

itatis

consid

ere

dto

be

no

tsu

ita

ble

for

bre

edin

gd

ue

tolim

ited

aqua

ticve

geta

tion

an

dm

odera

tetu

rbid

ity.

Exis

ting

veg

eta

tio

nin

clu

de

sE

ucaly

ptu

sp

ilula

ris,

Mela

leuca

sa

lignus,L

op

ho

ste

mon

co

nfe

rtus,

Trista

nio

psis

lauri

na,

Syzy

giu

mlu

ehm

ann

ii,C

ory

mbia

inte

rmed

ia,

Hib

iscus

hete

rophyllu

san

dLo

ma

ndra

lon

gifolia

.

Ta

rge

ted

Su

rvey

and

Ha

bita

tA

ssessm

en

tfo

rC

oa

sta

lP

eta

ltail

Dra

go

nfly

Woo

lgo

olg

ato

Ba

llin

aP

aci

ficH

igh

wa

yU

pg

rad

efo

rR

oa

ds

an

dM

ari

tim

eS

erv

ice

s

BA

AM

Pty

Ltd

Pa

ge

26

File

No.

036

1-0

02

Dra

ftA

Sit

eD

rag

on

flie

so

bse

rved

Sit

eD

esc

rip

tio

nR

ep

resen

tati

ve

Sit

eP

ho

toD

30

Dip

lacod

es

bip

uncta

ta,O

rthetr

um

cale

donic

um

,A

ustr

alia

nE

mera

ldH

em

icord

ulia

austr

alia

e,T

ram

ea

sp.,

Austr

og

om

phus

mela

leuca

e,A

ustr

alia

nE

mpero

rH

em

ianax

papu

en

sis

.

Situate

dw

ithin

Bro

ad

wate

rN

ationa

lP

ark

,an

ext

ensiv

eM

ela

leuca

sw

am

pw

ithperm

anentsta

nd

ing

wa

terb

od

ypro

vid

es

hig

hly

su

itab

leP

ote

nti

alB

reed

ing

Hab

itat.

This

wetla

nd

str

etc

hes

from

nort

h-w

est

tosou

th-e

ast

.

There

isam

ple

frin

gin

gve

geta

tion

and

aq

uatic

vegeta

tion

with

inth

eM

ela

leuca

sw

am

p.H

igh

dra

go

nfly

act

ivity

was

observ

ed

acro

ss

the

wetla

nd

duri

ng

the

surv

ey.

D31

Dip

lacod

es

bip

uncta

ta,O

rthetr

um

cale

donic

um

,A

ustr

alia

nE

mera

ldH

em

icord

ulia

austr

alia

e,T

ram

ea

sp.,

Austr

og

om

phus

mela

leuca

e,A

ustr

alia

nE

mpero

rH

em

ianax

papu

en

sis

.

This

open

sta

nd

ing

pon

dat

Bro

ad

wate

rN

ation

alP

ark

isbord

ere

db

yM

ela

leuca

and

weth

eath

an

dh

igh

lysuitable

Po

ten

tialB

reed

ing

Hab

ita

t.T

here

isgoo

dh

eath

connectivity

an

dm

odera

tew

etland

co

nnectivity

toth

esouth

-east;

ho

wever

this

isin

terr

upte

db

yth

eexi

stin

gP

acific

Hig

hw

ay

footp

rin

t.

Fringin

gve

geta

tion

inclu

de

sLepiro

nia

art

icula

ta,

Bau

mea

mu

elle

ri,

Balo

skio

npa

llens,B

aeckea

frute

scens,

Mela

leuca

nodo

sa,

Me

lale

uca

qu

inq

uen

erv

ia,

Gahnia

sp.,

Ba

nksia

eri

cifo

lia,

Banksia

aem

ula

,B

alo

skio

nte

tra

phyllu

m,Le

pto

sperm

um

trin

erv

ium

.D

32

Austr

og

om

phus

mela

leuca

e,O

rthetr

um

vill

osovitt

atu

m.

Anarr

ow

Me

lale

uca

sw

am

pto

the

so

uth

toB

roadw

ate

rN

ationa

lP

ark

and

nort

hto

ward

san

exis

ting

quarr

y.S

em

i-perm

anentw

ate

rbod

ypro

vides

su

itab

leP

ote

nti

al

Bre

ed

ing

Hab

itat,

alth

ou

gh

itis

un

likely

toco

nta

inare

as

of

open

sta

nd

ing

wate

rdue

toth

ed

ensity

of

aq

uatic

veg

eta

tio

n.

Veg

eta

tio

nin

clu

des

Me

lale

uca

qu

inq

uen

erv

ia,

Ba

um

ea

rubig

inosa,B

alo

skio

nte

tra

phyllu

m,

Ba

loskio

np

alle

ns,

Gahnia

sp.,

Xa

nth

orr

hoea

fulv

a,

Pte

ridiu

mescule

ntu

m,

Ento

lasia

marg

inata

an

dB

aeckea

frute

scens.

Ta

rge

ted

Su

rvey

and

Ha

bita

tA

ssessm

en

tfo

rC

oa

sta

lP

eta

ltail

Dra

go

nfly

Woo

lgo

olg

ato

Ba

llin

aP

aci

ficH

igh

wa

yU

pg

rad

efo

rR

oa

ds

an

dM

ari

tim

eS

erv

ice

s

BA

AM

Pty

Ltd

Pa

ge

27

File

No.

036

1-0

02

Dra

ftA

Ta

ble

3.2

.H

ab

ita

tc

on

dit

ion

sco

res

for

Co

as

talP

eta

lta

ilD

rag

on

fly

at

su

rve

ys

ite

sin

the

Stu

dy

Are

a.

Sit

eL

ot

on

Pla

n

As

se

ssm

en

tC

rite

ria

(0-5

)

To

tal

Sco

re

Pre

sen

ce

of

perm

an

en

to

rsem

i-p

erm

an

en

to

pen

sta

nd

ing

fresh

wate

r

Fre

sh

wate

rw

etl

an

dw

ith

ou

to

bv

iou

ssig

ns

of

po

llu

tio

n

Pre

sen

ce

of

am

ple

aq

uati

cv

eg

eta

tio

n

Pre

sen

ce

of

frin

gin

gv

eg

eta

tio

n

Pre

sen

ce

of

exte

nsiv

efr

esh

wate

rsw

am

pw

ith

in100

metr

es

of

sit

e

D01

Lot4

on

DP

223

267

11

01

14

D02

Lot5

on

DP

843

369

11

11

04

D03

Lot2

on

DP

818

940

11

11

04

D04

Lot3

on

DP

818

940

11

11

04

D05

Lot3

on

DP

818

940

11

11

04

D06

Lot6

1o

nD

P10

886

84

00

11

02

D07

Lot2

12

on

DP

8519

63

11

11

04

D08

Lot6

4o

nD

P75

562

41

10

10

3

D09

Lot4

8o

nD

P86

406

90

00

00

0

D10

Lot1

0o

nD

P11

082

70

01

01

02

D11

Lot1

00

on

DP

1138

614

11

11

04

D12

Lot1

00

on

DP

1138

614

01

11

03

D13

Lot3

on

DP

755

610

10

01

02

D14

Lot1

on

DP

534

051

10

11

03

D15

Lot1

83/D

P7

513

65

01

01

02

D16

Lot2

0o

nD

P75

136

51

00

11

3

D17

Lot1

9on

DP

751

365

11

11

15

D18

Lot1

33

on

DP

7513

65

10

11

03

D19

Lot2

on

DP

622

795

10

01

02

D20

Lot1

on

DP

393

766

11

11

15

D21

Lot1

62

on

DP

7366

70

11

11

04

D22

Lot1

11

on

DP

7513

68

11

01

14

D23

Lot4

0o

nD

P60

251

71

01

11

4

Ta

rge

ted

Su

rvey

and

Ha

bita

tA

ssessm

en

tfo

rC

oa

sta

lP

eta

ltail

Dra

go

nfly

Woo

lgo

olg

ato

Ba

llin

aP

aci

ficH

igh

wa

yU

pg

rad

efo

rR

oa

ds

an

dM

ari

tim

eS

erv

ice

s

BA

AM

Pty

Ltd

Pa

ge

28

File

No.

036

1-0

02

Dra

ftA

Sit

eL

ot

on

Pla

n

As

se

ssm

en

tC

rite

ria

(0-5

)

To

tal

Sco

re

Pre

sen

ce

of

perm

an

en

to

rsem

i-p

erm

an

en

to

pen

sta

nd

ing

fresh

wate

r

Fre

sh

wate

rw

etl

an

dw

ith

ou

to

bv

iou

ssig

ns

of

po

llu

tio

n

Pre

sen

ce

of

am

ple

aq

uati

cv

eg

eta

tio

n

Pre

sen

ce

of

frin

gin

gv

eg

eta

tio

n

Pre

sen

ce

of

exte

nsiv

efr

esh

wate

rsw

am

pw

ith

in100

metr

es

of

sit

e

D24

Roadsid

eon

Kath

leen

Dri

ve,

Dirty

Cre

ek

11

11

15

D25

Lot5

on

DP

752

820

10

01

02

D26

Lot1

0o

nD

P11

522

34

11

11

15

D27

Lot4

on

DP

806

515

01

01

02

D28

Lot3

4o

nD

P60

059

11

11

11

5

D29

Corin

diC

reek,P

acific

Hig

hw

ay

10

00

01

D30

Bro

ad

wate

rN

ation

alP

ark

11

11

15

D31

Bro

ad

wate

rN

ation

alP

ark

11

11

04

D32

Lot2

2on

DP

116

353

30

11

11

4


BAAM Pty Ltd Page 29File No. 0361-001 Version 0

4.0 KEY CONSIDERATIONS FORIMPACT MITIGATION

The following are recommended forconsideration in relation to the mitigation ofimpacts to Potential Breeding Habitat for CoastalPetaltail Dragonfly:

" Utilise road design features that avoiddisturbance to mapped wetland areas as faras possible;

" Implement drainage designs that reduce thepotential for altered hydrology in the vicinityof mapped wetlands;

" Ensure areas within the developmentcorridor that intersect with PotentialBreeding Habitat have appropriate silt andsediment controls in place; and

" Employ weed management practices toreduce the proliferation of aggressive weedsinto wetland areas, such as Crofton WeedAgeratina adenophora, Setaria Setariasphacelata, Hygrophila Hygrophila costata,Smartweed Persicaria decipiens, WaterPrimrose Ludwigia peploides ssp.Montevidensis, East Indian HygrophilaHygrophila polysperma and Buffalo SpinachEnydra fluctuans (Grantley et al. 2009). Inopen wetland areas, light grazing could beconsidered as an appropriate managementaction to limit the spread of Setaria, which isparticularly problematic in the Study Area.


BAAM Pty Ltd Page 30File No. 0361-001 Version 0

5.0 REFERENCES

Biodiversity Assessment and Management(BAAM) (2012). Ballina to WoodburnPacific Highway Upgrade TargetedThreatened Invertebrate Study. Reportprepared for Sinclair Knight Merz.

NSW Department of Environment andHeritage (DEH) (2014a). Coastal Petaltail– Profile.http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspeciesapp/profile.aspx?id=20139Accessed 13/11/14.

NSW Department of Environment andHeritage (DEH) (2014b). Freshwaterwetlands on coastal floodplains of the NSWNorth Coast, Sydney Basin and South EastCorner bioregions - endangered ecologicalcommunity listing.http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/determinations/FreshwaterWetlandsEndSpListing.htm Accessed 11/11/14.

Grantley J, McPherson F, Petroeschevsky A(2009). Recognising Water Weeds PlantIdentification Guide. Industry & InvestmentNSW.

Theisinger, G. (1999). A new species ofPetalura Leach from south-easternQueensland (Odonata: Petaluridae). Linzerbiol Beitr. 31: 159–166.

Theisinger, G. and Hawking, J. (2006). TheComplete Field Guide to Dragonflies ofAustralia. CSIRO publishing, Collingwood,Vic.

APPENDIX 1

Habitat assessment proforma for CoastalPetaltail Dragonfly survey

Lot number Site Name Date

Recorders GPS Co-ords

Camera Photo number(s)

Slope Crest Ridge Hillock Simple Slope Upper Slope Midslope

Lower Slope Flat Open Depression Closed Depression

Soil Texture Clay Clay Loam Silty Loam Loam Sandy Loam Sand

Stony Silty Clay Sandy Clay Silty Clay Loam Sandy Clay Loam Loam Sand

Vegetation Mapping correct yes no maybe

Describe

Waterbody present yes no Type of Waterbody Dam Lake Creek

Swamp Spring Gilgai Seepage Permanent yes no

Fringing Vegetation Reeds Sedges Melaleuca Heath

Weed cover % <5 5-25 25-50 >50

Disturbance type(s) livestock fire recreational logging extractive industry

Comments including other disturbance

Disturbance severity (inc weeds) none very low low moderate high severe

Evidence of exuviae no yes if yes: sparse common very common

Connectivity inc regrowth isolated poor moderate good

Comments on connectivity

Comments on habitat suitability for Petalura litorea

Dragonfly species recorded:

Density



Appendix E – Pre-construction survey and nocturnal monitoring for conservation significant invertebrates (BAAM, 2014)


PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND NOCTURNAL MONITORING

FOR CONSERVATION SIGNIFICANT INVERTEBRATES

Report prepared for

Roads and Maritime Services

BAAM Pty Ltd File No. 0361-001 Version 0

Document Control Sheet

File Number: 0361-001

Project Manager/s: Dr Lindsay Popple

Client: Roads and Maritime Services

Project Title: Woolgoolga to Ballina Pacific Highway Upgrade Preconstruction Survey and Nocturnal Monitoring for Conservation Significant Invertebrates

Project Author/s: Dr Lindsay Popple, Lui Weber, Ko Oishi and Dr Penn Lloyd

Project Summary: An initial site reconnaissance was conducted to identify future monitoring locations for Southern Pink Underwing Moth, Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle and Richmond Birdwing Butterfly in the Study Area and at control locations in Victoria Park Nature Reserve and Davis Scrub Nature Reserve. Nocturnal monitoring was performed for Southern Pink Underwing Moth and Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle for one week over six consecutive weeks during March and early April 2014. A preconstruction survey to obtain baseline data on the occurrence and abundance of significant invertebrates and their host plants was conducted in areas of known and potentially suitable habitat within 200 metres of the proposed road alignment corridor.

Draft Preparation History:

Draft No. Date draft completed

Reviewed by Issued by

0361-001 Draft A 01/05/2014 Jedd Appleton Lindsay Popple

Revision/ Checking History Track:

Version Date of Issue Checked by Issued by 0361-001 Version 0 23/05/2014 Jedd Appleton Jo Chambers

Document Distribution:

Destination Revision 1 Date

Dispatched 2 Date

Dispatched 3 Date

Dispatched 4 Date

Dispatched Client Copy 1 - digital

A 01/05/2014 0 23/05/2014

Client Copy 1- hard copy

PDF - server A 01/05/2014 0 23/05/2014 PDF – backup –archived Disk/tape

A 01/05/2014 0 23/05/2014

Hard Copy -library


NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS REPORT

Copyright and reproduction

This report and all indexes, schedules, annexures or appendices are subject to copyright pursuant to the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). Subject to statutory defences, no party may reproduce, publish, adapt or communicate to the public, in whole or in part, the content of this report without the express written consent of Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd.

Purpose of Report

Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd has produced this report in its capacity as consultants for and on the request of Roads and Maritime Services (the "Client") for the sole purpose of providing a preconstruction survey and series of nocturnal monitoring events to form a baseline for conservation significant invertebrates in association with the proposed Woolgoolga to Ballina Pacific Highway Upgrade (the "Specified Purpose"). This information and any recommendations in this report are particular to the Specified Purpose and are based on facts, matters and circumstances particular to the subject matter of the report and the Specified Purpose at the time of production. This report is not to be used, nor is it suitable, for any purpose other than the Specified Purpose. Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd disclaims all liability for any loss and/or damage whatsoever arising either directly or indirectly as a result of any application, use or reliance upon the report for any purpose other than the Specified Purpose.

This report has been produced solely for the benefit of the Client. Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd does not accept that a duty of care is owed to any party other than the Client. This report is not to be used by any third party other than as authorised in writing by Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd and any such use shall continue to be limited to the Specified Purpose. Further, Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd does not make any warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use in whole or in part of the report or application or use of any other information or process disclosed in this report and to the full extent allowed by law excludes liability in contract, tort or otherwise, for any loss or damage sustained by any person or body corporate arising from or in connection with the supply or use of the whole part of the report through any cause whatsoever.

Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd has used information provided to it by the Client and governmental registers, databases, departments and agencies in the preparation of this report. Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd does not know, nor does it have any reason to suspect, that the information provided to it was false, inaccurate, incomplete or misleading at the time of its receipt. This report is supplied on the basis that while Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd believes all the information in it is deemed reliable at the time of publication, it does not warrant its accuracy or completeness and to the full extent allowed by law excludes liability in contract, tort or otherwise, for any loss or damage sustained by any person or body corporate arising from or in connection with the supply or use of the whole or any part of the information in this report through any cause whatsoever.

Signed on behalf of Date: 23rd May 2014 Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd

Director


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Biodiversity Assessment and Management (BAAM) has prepared this report for Roads and Maritime Services to document the results of a preconstruction survey and nocturnal monitoring study of conservation significant invertebrates in rainforest habitats along the corridor of the proposed Woolgoolga to Ballina Pacific Highway Upgrade. The objectives of the study are to:

1. Document the occurrence of Southern Pink Underwing Moth Phyllodes imperialis (and its host plant, Carronia multisepalea), Atlas Rainforest Beetle Nurus atlas and Richmond Birdwing Ornithoptera richmondia (and its host plant Pararistolochia praevenosa);

2. Establish monitoring transects for the three invertebrate species and the two host plants listed above; and

3. Perform nocturnal monitoring of adult Southern Pink Underwing Moth and Atlas Rainforest Beetle.

Occurrences and counts of Carronia multisepalea and Pararistolochia praevenosa were recorded in rainforests between Wardell and Coolgardie to the south of Ballina. Thorough searches were conducted for larvae of Southern Pink Underwing Moth and Richmond Birdwing, as well as for burrows of Atlas Rainforest Beetle. Site assessments were conducted throughout areas of potentially suitable habitat for each species and rainforest polygons were specifically categorised to refine habitat mapping for Southern Pink Underwing Moth.

Five transects were established for the nocturnal monitoring of Southern Pink Underwing Moth and Atlas Rainforest Beetle adjacent to the Study Area. Two control transects suitable for each of these species were identified in reserves to the north-west of the Project. Three transects adjacent to the Study Area and one of the control transects were also identified as being suitable for future monitoring of Richmond Birdwing. Nocturnal monitoring was conducted for one night over six consecutive weeks using night vision goggles and LED flashlights. Fruit baits were used to attract Southern Pink Underwing Moth. Searches for Atlas Rainforest Beetle were reliant on active observation and the identification and examination of their distinctive burrows.

Carronia multisepalea was found to occur widely throughout appropriate habitats in the study area, including areas where its presence was not previously confirmed. Despite this, no adults, larvae or eggs of Southern Pink Underwing Moth were encountered in the Study Area during the preconstruction survey or entire monitoring period. Only a single larvae was found at one of the control sites during establishment of the transects. Observations of Atlas Rainforest Beetle were restricted to sightings at burrows in the control sites. No occupied burrows were identified in the Study Area. Richmond Birdwing adults and larvae were encountered on a small number of occasions in the Study Area. Sightings of the butterfly were made in association with Pararistolochia praevenosa, which occurred patchily throughout.

Below average rainfall during the 2013–2014 summer is considered likely to have contributed to the lack of activity of Southern Pink Underwing moth during this study. In spite of the poor season, the local prevalence of Carronia multisepalea and past survey results indicate that the Study Area does support an important breeding population of the moth. The same sites provide highly suitable breeding habitat for Richmond Birdwing. However, the Study Area appears to be of comparatively low suitability for Atlas Rainforest Beetle. The presence of the beetle was found to be far more conspicuous in the more friable Ferrosol soils associated with control sites to the north-west.

Monitoring for Southern Pink Underwing Moth would ideally be repeated in a higher rainfall summer season and consideration could be given to conducting the monitoring on a monthly (rather than weekly) basis across the warmer months. Further attempts to monitor Atlas Rainforest Beetle should be conducted only in the case where at least one definitive burrow is identified in the Study Area. Future monitoring of Richmond Birdwing could be considered on an annual basis to monitor the persistence of the local population.

BAAM Pty Ltd Page i File No. 0361-001 Version 0

PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND NOCTURNAL MONITORING FOR CONSERVATION SIGNIFICANT

INVERTEBRATES


Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Background and Purpose .............................................................................................. 1 1.2. Site Description ............................................................................................................. 1 1.3. Proposed Works ............................................................................................................ 1 1.4. Target Species .............................................................................................................. 3

2.0 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 3 2.1. Establishment of Monitoring Transects .......................................................................... 3 2.2. Weekly Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 3 2.3. Preconstruction Survey ................................................................................................. 7

2.3.1. Southern Pink Underwing Moth ...................................................................... 7 2.3.2. Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle ....................................................................... 7 2.3.3. Richmond Birdwing ......................................................................................... 7

2.4. Habitat Mapping and Condition Scores for Southern Pink Underwing Moth .................. 7

3.0 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 8 3.1. Rainfall conditions preceding the surveys ..................................................................... 8 3.2. Weekly Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 8 3.3. Preconstruction Survey ................................................................................................. 9

3.3.1. Southern Pink Underwing Moth ...................................................................... 9 3.3.2. Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle ..................................................................... 13 3.3.3. Richmond Birdwing ....................................................................................... 13

3.4. Habitat Mapping and Condition Scores ....................................................................... 13

4.0 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................... 16 4.1. Efficacy of Monitoring .................................................................................................. 16 4.2. Comparison with Previous Surveys ............................................................................. 16 4.3. Habitat Suitability Within the Study Area ..................................................................... 16

4.3.1. Southern Pink Underwing Moth .................................................................... 16 4.3.2. Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle ..................................................................... 17 4.3.3. Richmond Birdwing ....................................................................................... 18

5.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................... 18 6.0 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE MONITORING ................................................. 18 7.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 19

Preconstruction Survey and Nocturnal Monitoring for Conservation Significant Invertebrates Woolgoolga to Ballina Pacific Highway Upgrade for Roads and Maritime Services

BAAM Pty Ltd Page ii File No. 0361-001 Version 0

Table of Figures Figure 1.1: Location of the Study Area

Figure 2.1: Location of monitoring and control transects in the vicinity of the Study Area

Figure 3.1: Late spring to mid autumn monthly rainfall at Meerschaum Vale Weather Station (for years 2011–2012, 2012–2013 and 2013–2014, coinciding with the invertebrate surveys).

Figure 3.2: Location of Carronia multisepalea records obtained in the Study Area

Figure 3.3: Location of Pararistolochia praevenosa and Richmond Birdwing records obtained in the Study Area

Figure 3.4: Habitat mapping and condition scores for Southern Pink Underwing Moth in the Study Area

Table of Appendices Appendix 1: Preconstruction survey baseline data for relevant invertebrates in lowland rainforest in the Study Area and at control sites near Meerschaum Vale

Table of Terms and Abbreviations

BAAM Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd

Conservation significant Includes species listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable and Near Threatened under the EPBC Act and/or TSC Act and species listed as Regionally Significant under the Byron Biodiversity Conservation Strategy that have been identified in association with rainforest communities in the Study Area

EPBC Act Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

SKM Sinclair Knight Merz

Study Area An area within 200 m of the proposed Woolgoolga to Ballina Pacific Highway Upgrade Corridor between Pimlico and Buckombil Mountain southwest of Ballina, northern New South Wales

TSC Act New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995


BAAM Pty Ltd Page 1 File No. 0361-001 Version 0

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Biodiversity Assessment and Management (BAAM) has prepared this report for Roads and Maritime Services for the purpose of providing a preconstruction survey and nocturnal monitoring for conservation significant invertebrates on properties in the vicinity of Coolgardie Road near Woodburn in northern New South Wales (the ‘Study Area’). The scope of works also required nocturnal monitoring at control locations in national park estates to the northwest of the Study Area for comparative purposes.

The overarching goal of this project is to partially fulfil obligations specified under the Woolgoolga to Ballina Threatened Invertebrate Management Plan (NSW Roads and Maritime Services 2013a), which prescribes management practices for values protected by regulations in relation to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act). More specifically, this study aims to:

Obtain new baseline data on rainforest-associated invertebrates (and their host plants) identified as being relevant to the project.

Establish monitoring transects for conservation significant invertebrates and host plants that will allow data to be collected throughout the life of the project.

Undertake and report on nocturnal monitoring for Southern Pink Underwing Moth Phyllodes imperialis smithersi and Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle Nurus atlas along each transect.

The results of this report are based on site investigations undertaken by Dr Lindsay Popple and Lui Weber on 4–5 March and 18–21 March 2014 and from monitoring activities undertaken by Dr Lindsay Popple and Lui Weber on 5, 12, 19 and 26 March, by Lui Weber and Ko Oishi on 2 April, and by Dr Lindsay Popple and Ko Oishi on 9 April, all during 2014.

1.2. SITE DESCRIPTION

The Study Area is broadly linear and partially follows the footprint of the existing Pacific

Highway near Pimlico in the north, then diverting to the west from the intersection of Coolgardie Road southwest to Buckombil Mountain (Figure 1.1). Areas to the south along the proposed Woolgoolga to Ballina road upgrade alignment have already been identified as not containing habitat suitable for the rainforest-associated invertebrates that have been targeted as part of this study (BAAM 2012).

Vegetation types targeted for the purpose of this study included areas mapped by BAAM (2012, 2013) as Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia (Commonwealth-listed Threatened Ecological Community [TEC]), as well as rainforest regrowth or camphor-dominated communities that did not meet the condition requirements to match the Commonwealth-listed TEC. Almost all polygons of these habitats within the Study Area are restricted to steep rocky slopes or lower slopes on dark basaltic soils (Sheringham et al. 2008), with the exception of some parts of Buckombil Mountain, where red basaltic earths transition abruptly to lighter coloured soils (presumably Kurosols derived from metamorphic rocks; Jenkins & Morand 2002).

Suitable control sites were identified outside and to the northwest of the Study Area in Victoria Nature Reserve and Davis Scrub Nature Reserve. Both of these areas contain remnant Lowland Rainforest on rich red Ferrosols formed on a basaltic plateau (Jenkins and Morand 2002).

1.3. PROPOSED WORKS

It is understood that a development is intended to take place within the Study Area in the form of a partly raised, multi-lane highway, with interchanges, lighting and temporary construction infrastructure located at appropriate points. These works will require clearing of vegetation and earthworks throughout a portion of the length of the Study Area; however the position of the proposed road alignment has been sited to avoid direct impacts to rainforest habitat containing the conservation significant invertebrates targeted in this study. More specific details on the project are available in NSW Roads and Maritime Services (2013b).

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LISMORE

GRAFTON

CASINO BALLINA

WOOLI

YAMBAILUKA

CORAKI

TATH AM

TUCABIAULMARRA

MAC LEAN

HARWOOD

WARDELL

MULLAWAY

RED ROCK

LAWRENCE

COALDALE

WHIPORIE

WOODBURN

WYRALLAH

GLENREAGH

RAPPVILLE

MUMMULGUM

BRUSHGROVE

CHATSWORTH

EVANS HEAD

BROADWATER

MONGOGARIE

ALSTONVILLE

LENNOX HEAD

MINNIE WATER

CAMIRA CREEK

CORINDI BEACH

PILLAR VALLEY

COUTTS CROSSING

CARRS C REEK JUNCTION

153°0'E

153°0'E29

°0'S

29°0

'S

30°0

'S

30°0

'S

© Biodiv er si ty As ses sm ent and M anagem ent Pty Ltd. W hi le ev ery c are is taken to ens ure the ac curac y of th is data, B iod iv ersi ty A ss es sm ent and M anagem ent m akes no repres entations or warranties about i ts ac curac y, r e liabi li ty, com pletenes s or s u itab i li ty for any particu lar pur pose and d isc la ims a ll respons ib il i ty and a l l l iab i li ty (includ ing without lim ita tion l iab i li ty in negl igence) for a l l ex pens es , los ses , dam ages (including ind ir ect cons equential damage) and cos tswhich m ight be inc urred as a res ul t o f the data being inacc urate or inc omplete in any way and for any reason.

Doc um ent Location: D:\G IS\J obs \0361- 001 B all ina Sur vey s\GIS \M XDs \Repor tMaps \Figure 1-1 Location of S tudy A rea.m xdDate: 29/04/2014 1:56:21 PM

Figure: Title:

Project:

Client:

°Coor dinate S y stem : GCS GDA 1994

Datum : GDA 1994Uni ts: Degree

0 7.5 15 22.5 303.75Kilo me ters


Reviewed b y: L P Date: 2 9/04 /20 14Drawn By: M G

1-1Location of the Study Area

Woolgoolga to BallinaPacific Highway UpgradeInvertebrate Monitoring.Roads & Maritime Services, NSW

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

WARDELL

N e w N e w S o u t h S o u t h W a l e sW a l e s

Project Location

LEGENDProposed Road Alignment

Primary roads

Secondary roads

Rail line

Properties within alignment

! Towns

Built-up area

Watercourse

STUDYAREA



1.4. TARGET SPECIES

Three conservation significant invertebrate species are known to occur in association with rainforest habitats in the Study Area:

Pink Underwing Moth Phyllodes imperialis smithersi (Endangered under the EPBC Act and the TSC Act) and its host plant Carronia multisepalea (not threatened);

Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle Nurus atlas (Endangered under the TSC Act); and

Richmond Birdwing Ornithoptera richmondia (Regionally Significant under the Byron Biodiversity Conservation Strategy) and its host plant Pararistolochia praevenosa (not threatened).

2.0 METHODOLOGY

All surveys were performed under BAAM’s NSW Scientific Licence number SL100704.

2.1. ESTABLISHMENT OF MONITORING TRANSECTS

Monitoring transects were identified to enable preconstruction and future monitoring of Carronia multisepalea, Pararistolochia praevenosa, Southern Pink Underwing Moth, Richmond Birdwing and Atlas Rainforest Beetle populations in the Study Area and at control sites throughout the various phases of the project. Suitable locations for the transects were identified in the Study Area with reference to the previous records of BAAM (2012, 2013). Suitable control sites were identified using occurrence data provided in the Atlas of Living Australia portal.

Five transects were established for monitoring both Southern Pink Underwing Moth and Atlas Rainforest Beetle in the Study Area. These included locations where the presence of these species has been confirmed during previous surveys. An additional transect for each of these species was identified at control sites in each of Davis Scrub Nature Reserve and Victoria Park Nature Reserve. Each transect included multiple individuals of the host plant for Pink Underwing moth, Carronia multisepalea. Three of the Study Area transects described above also contained Pararistolochia praevenosa and were identified as being suitable for monitoring Richmond Birdwing. The

control transect in Victoria Park (C2) was also considered suitable for monitoring this species. No birdwing vine was located in either of the control sites; however an extensive (planted) vine was located adjacent to Victoria Park not far from transect C2.

Each transect was 50 m in length, with some deviation from a straight line to improve detection of Atlas Rainforest Beetle in areas of potentially suitable microhabitat. The start and end of each transect was recorded by GPS. Flagging tape was used to mark 10 m intervals along each transect to facilitate the deployment of baits for Pink Underwing Moth. Photographic records were taken at each cardinal compass point at the centre of each transect.

The locations of the monitoring transects are shown in Figure 2.1. A description of each of the Study Area and control site transects is provided in Table 2.1.

2.2. WEEKLY MONITORING

Nocturnal monitoring was conducted for Pink Underwing Moth and Atlas Rainforest Beetle at each of the five Study Area transects and the two control sites for one night over six consecutive weeks from the beginning of March 2014. Over-ripe banana baits were prepared and deployed during the afternoon prior to each monitoring session. The baits were suspended from tree branches within arms reach at 10 m intervals along each 50 m transect. For the final monitoring event two additional baits consisting of ripe custard apple were deployed at each trapping location to observe the potential influence of using a different bait type on monitoring success.

Monitoring was conducted for approximately 20 minutes along each transect, between 6.30 and 10.30 pm. Night vision goggles and a night vision LED torch were used to scan each bait for signs of moth activity. Baits were removed sequentially after being checked. The ground and any previously identified burrows in the vicinity of each transect was checked for signs of Atlas Rainforest Beetle activity. Small LED flashlights were used to negotiate areas of difficult terrain along each transect and during transit. Use of these torches was kept to a minimum as far as possible during the monitoring to minimise light disturbance.

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!!!!!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

!!!!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!!

!! ! ! !

WARDELL


Doc um ent Location: D:\G IS\J obs \0361- 001 B all ina Sur vey s\GIS \M XDs \Repor tMaps \Figure 2-1 Location of m onitoring and contro l transec ts.m xdDate: 29/04/2014 1:30:04 PM

Figure: Title:

Project:

Client:



0 0.65 1.3 1.95 2.60.32 5Kilo me ters

at A41:62,500Notes:


2-1Location of the monitoring and controltransects in the vicinity of the Study Area


Project Location

C2

C1

T1

T5

T2T3

T4

LEGENDSurvey transects





Table 2.1. Monitoring and control transects in the vicinity of the Study Area

Transect name, target species and position

Baseline photographs North East South West

T1. Confirmed location for Southern Pink Underwing Moth and Atlas Rainforest Beetle. Suitable for Richmond Birdwing. Start: 28.9296°S 153.4652°E. End: 28.9294°S 153.4657°E.

T2. Confirmed location for Southern Pink Underwing Moth. Suitable transect for Atlas Rainforest Beetle and Richmond Birdwing. Start: 28.9293°S 153.4649°E. End: 28.9292°S 153.4653°E.

T3. Suitable for Southern Pink Underwing Moth and Atlas Rainforest Beetle. Start: 28.9268°S 153.4698°E. End: 28.9266°S 153.4701°E.



T4. Confirmed location for Southern Pink Underwing Moth. Suitable for Atlas Rainforest Beetle. Start: 28.9253°S 153.4718°E. End: 28.9248°S 153.4719°E.

T5. Suitable for Southern Pink Underwing Moth, Atlas Rainforest Beetle and Richmond Birdwing. Start: 28.9286°S 153.4669°E. End: 28.9290°S 153.4665°E.

C1. Confirmed site for Atlas Rainforest Beetle. Suitable for Southern Pink Underwing Moth. Start: 28.8665°S 153.4051°E. End: 28.8668°S 153.4048°E.

C2. Confirmed site for Atlas Rainforest Beetle. Suitable for Southern Pink Underwing Moth and Richmond Birdwing. Start: 28.9028°S 153.4102°E. End: 28.9030°S 153.4100°E.



Notes on the invertebrate activity and weather conditions were kept for each transect during each weekly monitoring event.

2.3. PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEY

The preconstruction survey targeted properties within the Study Area where Carronia multisepalea, Pararistolochia praevenosa, Southern Pink Underwing Moth, Richmond Birdwing and Atlas Rainforest Beetle populations were previously identified (BAAM 2012, 2013). Locations with potential habitat for the above species that were not accessed during those previous surveys on Lot 50 on DP1120710, Lot 2 on DP543525 and Lot 4 on DP707736 were also visited.

2.3.1. Southern Pink Underwing Moth

Counts and GPS records of Carronia multisepalea were recorded wherever it was encountered. Thorough searches were undertaken along meandering transects through patches of the host plant for larvae and eggs of Southern Pink Underwing Moth. Notes were kept on the health, growth form and sex (where possible) of the host plants.

Data collected within each polygon of known or potentially suitable habitat and at each monitoring transect for Southern Pink Underwing Moth included:

Number, sex and form of individuals of Carronia multisepalea.

Leaf characteristics (in particular, presence of soft, pale new leaf growth) of individuals of Carronia multisepalea.

Presence, abundance and age of any Southern Pink Underwing Moth larvae found on host plants.

Number of fleshy-fruited native tree species.

Percent cover of native and exotic plant species in each stratum.

Percent canopy cover

2.3.2. Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle

Habitat assessments were performed in areas of lowland rainforest, making note of the cover of rocks and logs and general suitability of remnant and regrowth areas for Atlas Rainforest Beetle. Meandering searches were conducted

in areas of suitable habitat, checking under rocks, logs and plant roots for characteristic burrows. Areas where burrows have previously been recorded were checked. GPS records were taken for any potential new burrows.

2.3.3. Richmond Birdwing

Opportunistic observations and records of Richmond Birdwing adults and larvae were made during the preconstruction survey and throughout the monitoring. Additional records of Pararistolochia praevenosa were obtained wherever new vines were encountered.

2.4. HABITAT MAPPING AND CONDITION SCORES FOR SOUTHERN PINK UNDERWING MOTH

As per the previous survey of BAAM (2013), polygons of habitat for Southern Pink Underwing Moth were identified into three categories. These were:

1. Known habitat for P. i. smithersi where host plant and larval records occur and where the moth is considered likely to occur throughout the polygon;

2. Potential habitat for P. i. smithersi where the host vine, Carronia multisepalea, has been detected, but where moth larvae have not been recorded; and

3. Potential habitat for P. i. smithersi where the moth and host vine have not yet been detected.

The survey of additional polygons and revisiting the areas surveyed previously allowed a refinement of past mapping. Areas of potential and known habitat were then scored by ‘habitat condition’ relative to the ecological requirements of Southern Pink Underwing Moth as far as they are understood. Polygons were given a score of between 0 and 6, with a point being awarded for each one of the following criteria (modified from BAAM 2013):

Host plant (Carronia multisepalea) was detected during the surveys;

Number of native fleshy-fruited tree species (which potentially provide food for the adult moth) detected during the survey was >20;



Patch exhibited natural canopy gaps (allowing for potential recruitment of the host plant);

Canopy cover comprised >50% native species;

Number of rainforest indicator species (from TSSC 2011) was >30; and

Included areas where canopy cover was dominantly ≥65%.

3.0 RESULTS

3.1. RAINFALL CONDITIONS PRECEDING THE SURVEYS

Rainfall conditions differed between the current survey and the surveys in 2012 and 2013. The 2012 survey was preceded by a rainfall event that was significantly above average. Greater than average rainfall occurred again in January and February, 2013, immediately prior to the next survey. However, rainfall across three months prior to the 2014 survey was far below average, leading to conditions that were far less conducive to invertebrate activity (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1. Late spring to mid autumn monthly rainfall at Meerschaum Vale Weather Station (for years 2011–2012, 2012–2013 and 2013–2014, coinciding with the invertebrate surveys). Mean monthly rainfall is also shown. Data from http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/.

3.2. WEEKLY MONITORING

A summary of the weekly monitoring results is provided in Table 3.1. Notably, no definitive observations of adult Southern Pink Underwing Moth were made during the six weeks of monitoring, despite a variety of other moth species being attracted to the baits (Photos 1–3). Only one observation of a large moth near a bait during one monitoring event was a potential

candidate and this brief sighting was inconclusive (Table 3.1).

Photo 1. Common Fruit-piercing Moth Eudocima fullonia attracted to a banana bait in transect T4.

Observations of Atlas Rainforest Beetle activity were made on several occasions in both transects at the control sites (Photo 4); however, none were obtained during monitoring within the Study Area (Table 3.1). Several beetle burrows were identified at the control transects prior to the undertaking of monitoring and all Atlas Rainforest Beetle activity was observed in or immediately adjacent to these burrows. Only a single potential burrow was identified in the Study Area and no beetle activity was observed in association with this burrow during the monitoring.

Photo 2. Owl Moth Erebus terminitincta attracted to a banana bait in transect T5.



Photo 3. A small moth (Achaea sp.) attracted to a banana bait in transect T1.

Photo 4. Atlas Rainforest Beetle Nurus atlas waiting for prey at the entrance to a burrow at control transect C2.

3.3. PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEY

The survey was performed in the middle of March, two weeks after a modest amount of rainfall (~25 mm over a week), which was the largest amount of rain in over one month prior to the rainfall event. Detailed site assessments undertaken during the survey for Southern Pink Underwing Moth, Atlas Rainforest Beetle and Richmond Birdwing are presented in Appendix 1.


All polygons where the host plant for Southern Pink Underwing Moth, Carronia multisepalea, was identified on previous surveys were revisited during the current survey to check on the health and status of the host plant populations. Two large additional patches of Carronia multisepalea were identified in areas that were not accessed during previous surveys.

Records of Carronia multisepalea within the Study Area are depicted in Figure 3.2. No plants were identified within 20 m of the road corridor.

Plants in all populations were found to be in good health, typically with signs of new growth, sporadic evidence of seeding and patchy occurrences of recent recruitment. Almost all plants showed signs of old herbivory consistent with moth larval activity (either Southern Pink Underwing Moth or Common Fruit Piercing Moth, or both) presumably during the most recent summer. Signs of more recent herbivory were generally indicative of leaf beetle or orthopteran damage, rather than moth activity.

Despite thorough searches in patches of Carronia multisepalea, including searches at locations where the presence of Southern Pink Underwing Moth was confirmed during the previous surveys (BAAM 2012, 2013), no signs of moth larvae or eggs were observed in the Study Area during the current survey. Only a single larvae of a Southern Pink Underwing Moth was found at one of the control sites during establishment of the transects (28°51.994°S 153°24.355’E) (Photo 5).

Photo 5. Southern Pink Underwing Moth Phyllodes imperialis smithersi larva on a Carronia multisepalea vine in Davis Scrub Nature Reserve.

!P!P

!P!P

!P!P

!P!P

!P!P

!P !P !P!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

1

1

2

1

2 2 25

82

5

8

11

564

8 12

21

15

16

52

65

16

31

62

117

160

157500

157400

157300

157200

157100

157000

156900

156800

156700

156600

156500

156400156300

156200156100156000155900155800155700

155600155500

155400155300

155200155100


Doc um ent Location: D:\G IS\J obs \0361- 001 B all ina Sur vey s\GIS \M XDs \Repor tMaps \Figure 3-2 Location of Carr on ia mul tis epalea records .m xdDate: 29/04/2014 1:34:07 P M

Figure: Title:

Project:

Client:



0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40.05Kilo me ters

at A41:12,772Notes:


3-2Location of Carronia mulisepalea recordsobtained in the Study Area


Project Location

_̂ Woolgoolga to BallinaPacific Highway UpgradeInvertebrate Monitoring.Roads & Maritime Services, NSW

LEGENDCarronia multisepalea recordsTotal number of individual plants:

1 - 17

21 - 33

49

52 - 65

65 - 81

140 - 160

112 - 128

!P Chainage 100m marks



Table 3.1. Results of the six monitoring events for Southern Pink Underwing Moth and Atlas Rainforest Beetle. Date Rainfall General Notes Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle Pink Underwing Moth 5/03/2014 13 mm over 7

days prior to survey.

Low humidity. No ant activity. Minimal invertebrate activity with the exception of some small moths. A katydid was found consuming one of the baits at transect T2 and cockroaches were found on baits at T5 and C1.

No activity identified at the monitoring transects within the Study Area, including at the potential burrow identified at transect T3. No activity observed at control transects, including at likely burrows.

No activity or possible signs of adult Pink Underwing Moth found during the monitoring at any Study Area or control transects.

12/03/2014 18.2 mm over 7 days prior to survey, including 8.8 mm on day prior to survey.

High humidity. Increased invertebrate activity, including ants, spiders, beetles, cockroaches and moths. A geometrid moth was observed briefly feeding at a bait at transect T5.

A large beetle was observed briefly at transect T3; however it evaded capture before it could be examined. No other activity was identified at the monitoring transects within the Study Area, including at the possible burrow in site T3. No activity observed at control transects, including at likely burrows. Other carabid beetles were observed and photographed during the monitoring, including a Pamborus species at transect T2 and an unidentified species near transect T3.

A single large moth was disturbed at rest from near a bait in transect T3. It was the size of a small bird. It moved quickly in bouts of several short flights up and disappeared into the middle canopy before close observations or a photograph could be obtained. Its size, shape and behaviour were all potentially consistent with Southern Pink Underwing Moth; however a variety of other potential candidates also exist.

19/03/2014 15.8 mm over 7 days prior to survey.

High humidity, warm night. Reasonable invertebrate activity, including ants, spiders, beetles, cockroaches and moths. Photograph of an Owl Moth feeding at a bait on transect T2.

No activity identified at the monitoring transects within the Study Area, including at the potential burrow identified at transect T3. An active Atlas Rainforest Beetle was observed in one burrow in each of control transects C1 and C2. In C1, aggressive feeding activity was observed under torchlight. The beetles were positioned at angles that proved difficult to photograph. After some observation the beetles retreated down their burrows.


26/03/2014 67.6 mm over 7 days prior to survey.

High humidity, light breeze, mild night. Conspicuous invertebrate activity, including ants, spiders, beetles, cockroaches and moths. Owl Moth sighted in transect T5 (not near baits). Common Fruit Piercing Moth photographed at bait in transect T4.

No activity identified at the monitoring transects within the Study Area, including at the potential burrow identified at transect T3. An active Atlas Rainforest Beetle was observed in one burrow in each of control transects C1 and C2. Photographs were taken at each location. After some observation the beetles retreated down their burrows. Vibration appeared to disturb beetles, but not the use of an LED flashlight.




Date Rainfall General Notes Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle Pink Underwing Moth 2/04/2014 123.6 mm over

7 days prior to survey.

High humidity, warm night. Conspicuous invertebrate activity, including ants, spiders, beetles, cockroaches and moths. Owl Moth sighted and photographed at bait in transect T4.

No activity identified at the monitoring transects within the Study Area, including at the potential burrow identified at transect T3. An active Atlas Rainforest Beetle was observed in one burrow in control transect C2 and three were observed at site C1 (photos taken). After some observation the beetles retreated down their burrows. Vibration appeared to disturb beetles. Use of the LED flashlight appeared to disturb the beetles only when they were sitting outside of the entrance of their burrows.


9/04/2014 43.8 mm over three days immediately prior to survey.

Moderate humidity, mild night. Patchy invertebrate activity, including ants, spiders, katydids, beetles, cockroaches and moths. Two Owl Moth sighted and photographed at bait in transect T4. Two Achaea sp. Moth photographed at baits in transect T1. Almost all insects attracted to traps were found at banana baits, with only a few small beetles attracted to the custard apples incorporated into this final monitoring event.

No activity identified at the monitoring transects within the Study Area. Four active Atlas Rainforest Beetle were observed in their burrows in control transect C2 and one was observed at site C1. After some observation the beetles retreated down their burrows.





Thorough searches for Atlas Rainforest Beetle were conducted in areas of suitable habitat, including at Transect 1 where the presence of the beetle was confirmed during previous surveys; however, no individuals of the beetle were found in the Study Area during the monitoring events. A single potential burrow was found at monitoring transect T3 (Figure 2.1), but this was later identified to be an inactive burrow with no signs of activity during nocturnal monitoring. Remnants of older potential burrows were found near transect T1; however there were no signs of recent occupation. In comparison, numerous active burrows were identified in the control monitoring transects (Table 3.1) and many more were identified during general observations throughout both control sites.


Incidental observations of Richmond Birdwing adults and larvae (Photo 6) were made in the Study Area during the preconstruction survey and throughout the monitoring activity. Courtship activity was observed at transect T1. Several new host plants were identified, along with new recruitment events. Records of Richmond Birdwing and Pararistolochia praevenosa obtained during the survey are presented in Figure 3.3.

Photo 6. Richmond Birdwing larva on a Pararistolochia praevenosa vine in the Study Area.

3.4. HABITAT MAPPING AND CONDITION SCORES

Due to the absence of records of Southern Pink Underwing Moth during the preconstruction survey, the area of known habitat for the moth in the Study Area remains unchanged from previous surveys (33.2 hectares) and. Following completion of the current survey where new sites were visited, the total amount of potential habitat has been extended from the 57.3 hectares identified in the supplementary survey report (BAAM 2013) to 67.7 hectares, although the area of potential habitat within the road corridor footprint remains unchanged. Table 3.2 summarises the extent of potential habitat that was scored and ranked based on Habitat Condition relative to the ecological requirements of the moth (with a score of “6” being the highest ranking of Habitat Condition). Habitat mapping for this species is presented in Figure 3.4.

Table 3.2. Extent of known or potential habitat for Southern Pink Underwing Moth ranked according to condition. Habitat Condition ranking (see Section 2.4)

Area (hectares) Known habitat

Potential habitat (where host is present)

Potential habitat (where host was not detected)

0 0 0 0.3 1 0 0 3.7 2 0 0 1.2 3 0 3.9 3.0 4 0 5.2 4.2 5 7.6 9.7 11.6 6 25.5 8.3 0 No ranking1 0 0 16.6 TOTAL AREA 33.2 27.1 40.6 1 Rankings were allocated only to polygons that have been visited as part of this study or previous surveys (BAAM 2012, 2013).

!P!P

!P!P

!P!P

!P!P

!P !P !P !P !P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

Adult & Larvae

AdultAdultlarvae

1

1

65

1

9 1

4

1

11

15

15

14 31

15

158000

157900

157800

157700

157600

157500

157400

157300

157200

157100

157000

156900

156800

156700

156600

156500156400

156300156200156100156000155900155800

155700155600155500

155400155300

155200155100

155000


Doc um ent Location: D:\G IS\J obs \0361- 001 B all ina Sur vey s\GIS \M XDs \Repor tMaps \Figure 3-3 Location of P araristo loc h ia praevenosa and A Richm ond B ir dwing rec or ds.m xdDate: 29/04/2014 2:14:00 PM

Figure: Title:

Project:

Client:



0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.60.07 5Kilo me ters

at A41:14,117Notes:


3-3Location of Pararistolochia praevenosa and the Richmond Birdwing Butterfly recordsobtained within the Study Area


Project Location

Pararistolochia praevenosa records by count!( 0!( 1!( 4!( 5

!( 6

!( 9

!( 14

!( 15

!( 31

Richmond Birdwing Butterfly record

LEGEND



_̂

!P!P

!P!P

!P!P

!P!P

!P!P !P !P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

6

5

6

35

6 5

5

4

4

34

3

6

1

2

4

3

4

2

4

2

4

5

5157500

157400

157300

157200

157100

157000

156900

156800

156700

156600

156500

156400156300

156200156100156000155900155800155700

155600155500

155400155300

155200155100


Doc um ent Location: D:\G IS\J obs \0361- 001 B all ina Sur vey s\GIS \M XDs \Repor tMaps \Figure 3-4 Habita t m apping and c ondi tion s cores for Southern Pink Underwing M oth in the Study ar ea.m xdDate: 29/04/2014 1:44:32 PM

Figure: Title:

Project:

Client:



0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40.05Kilo me ters

at A41:12,772Notes:


3-4Habitat mapping and condition scores for Southern Pink Underwing Moth within the study area.


Project Location

_̂

LEGENDSouthern Pink Underwing Moth HabitatHabitat condition score:

Known habitat for Phyllodes imperialisPotential P. imperialis habitat no host plant

Potential P. imperialis habitat with host plant

Other mapped vegetation


5 (example)




4.0 DISCUSSION

4.1. EFFICACY OF MONITORING

The methodology for monitoring Southern Pink Underwing Moth was developed through consultation with Dr D. P. A. Sands, a leading expert on the biology of this species. It is the first time this methodology has been trialled, and on this occasion, it was not successful in its primary goal of attracting adults of the moth. However, it should be noted that moths of various species, as well as other invertebrates, were observed to be attracted to the banana baits. Therefore, the banana baits were at least proven to be successful as a general attractant. Custard apples, which were deployed in addition to bananas for the final monitoring event, were not found to be superior to bananas in this regard (Table 3.1).

Only a single larvae of Southern Pink Underwing Moth was found at one of the control sites during establishment of the transects. This lack of activity may be related to the timing of the surveys following an exceptionally poor summer rainfall season (see Section 4.2). Consequently, the monitoring conducted to date is insufficient to allow judgement of the effectiveness of using nocturnal observation of banana baits to monitor Southern Pink Underwing Moth.

For Atlas Rainforest Beetle, the approach to monitoring was reliant upon either (1) the prior identification of potential burrows to check during the monitoring, and/or (2) the discovery of male adult beetles performing nocturnal roving in search of a mate. Unlike the methods for Southern Pink Underwing Moth, these techniques have previously been demonstrated as a suitable recommended approach for surveys (Monteith and Turco, n.d.). After extensive searches within the Study Area prior to undertaking monitoring, one potential burrow was identified, but no beetle activity was observed in association with that burrow. In contrast, at the control sites, several burrows were identified and beetle activity was observed on a regular basis. Notably, however, no beetles were observed roving at the control sites, which suggests that mating activity may not have taken place during the six weeks of monitoring. Perhaps not surprisingly, monitoring of beetles in the Study Area without the identification of any occupied burrows and

potentially in the absence of mating activity resulted in no observations. Nevertheless, the monitoring was clearly effective at the control sites where occupied burrows were identified.

4.2. COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS SURVEYS

During past surveys, the presence of Southern Pink Underwing Moth and Atlas Rainforest Beetle was confirmed in the Study Area during March 2012 and February 2013 (BAAM 2012, 2013). Southern Pink Underwing Moth was detected in large numbers (in immature stages), whereas only one individual of Atlas Rainforest Beetle was encountered in each year. Contrastingly, in March–April 2014, neither species was detected during the survey and monitoring of the same sites visited during the former surveys. Although, in the case of Southern Pink Underwing Moth, some potential herbivory was evident in most survey sites (Appendix 1), suggesting that they may have been present earlier, perhaps during summer.

The most conspicuous environmental variable that may have contributed to the disparity between the 2012–2013 surveys and the 2014 survey is rainfall. It is evident that invertebrate activity in 2012 and 2013 coincided with above average rainfall in the preceding month(s) (January in 2012 and January–February in 2013). By contrast, rainfall over the three months of summer in 2014 was well below average (Figure 3.1). The lack of detectable activity of Southern Pink Underwing Moth and Atlas Rainforest Beetle in the Study Area during the March–April 2014 survey could quite feasibly be linked to below average rainfall. Rainfall in particular may be an important environmental cue for triggering eclosion of the pupa, which is a critical precursor to seasonal moth activity (Common 1990).

4.3. HABITAT SUITABILITY WITHIN THE STUDY AREA


The Study Area contains 33.2 hectares of lowland rainforest that is recognised as known habitat for Southern Pink Underwing Moth (Figure 3.4). Due to the presence of a large number of Carronia vines (Figure 3.2) and the finding of a large numbers of larval stages of the moth during previous surveys (BAAM 2012,



2013), the Study Area must be considered as a significant breeding site for the species (NSW Roads and Maritime Services 2013).

Nearby control sites in Davis Scrub Nature Reserve and Victoria Park Nature Reserve also contain breeding populations of the moth (pers. obs. BAAM staff 2012, 2013; this report). However, a thorough search of these reserves yielded only small quantities of the host plant by comparison with the Study Area (18 stems in site C1 and six stems in site C2; c.f. 30–160 stems per location in transects T1 to T5; Appendix 1). Therefore, the Study Area is believed to support a much larger breeding population than the neighbouring reserves. The retention of habitat in areas adjacent to the Project can be considered to be particularly important for sustaining Southern Pink Underwing Moth, both in the Ballina district and within its wider distribution in northern New South Wales and southern Queensland.


Previous surveys detected Atlas Rainforest Beetle on two occasions in the Study Area (BAAM 2012, 2013). The first beetle was detected in a burrow in the vicinity of transect T1 in March 2012 (Figure 2.1). The beetle was collected and supplied to the Queensland Museum. Staff at the museum confirmed its identification as Atlas Rainforest Beetle and the specimen has been kept as a voucher for the new locality record. A second beetle was serendipitously found dead on the ground in an adjoining property within the same polygon of vegetation to the west of the previous record a year later. This second specimen was also provided to the Queensland Museum. No other confirmed observations of Atlas Rainforest Beetle were made during those surveys.

Immediately prior to and during the recent monitoring in 2014, no further observations of occupied beetle burrows were made in the Study Area. In contrast, at the control sites in Davis Scrub Nature Reserve and Victoria Park Nature Reserve, beetle burrows were easily identified on multiple occasions with 10 and 16 burrows identified in transects C1 and C2 respectively (Appendix 1). In one area within Victoria Park, burrow density appeared to be particularly high with a burrow being present within every 1–2 m2, often immediately adjacent to burrows occupied by other aggressive predatory invertebrates, including Myrmecia sp.

(jumping) ants, mygalomorph (funnel web) spiders and stenopalmatid (king) crickets.

The apparent difference in detection rates of Atlas Rainforest Beetle between the nature reserve control sites and the Study Area can perhaps be explained by differences in the microhabitat attributes of the two areas. The two nature reserves are characterised by rich red ferrosols (Jenkins and Morand 2002), which are friable and highly suitable for burrowing. The soil is plentiful and deep, with large rocks and/or logs and tree roots scattered fairly regularly throughout the habitat. In contrast, the Study Area contains a chocolate clay loam soil, which shows a tendency to be aggregate and is not so friable. Small rocks are typically abundant throughout, with only occasional logs, plant roots or large rock overhangs available. Soil accessibility, including under otherwise suitable structures, is affected by the small rocks, which appear to be just as abundant beneath the surface. This provides a limitation to the majority of microsites that would otherwise be suitable for occupancy of Atlas Rainforest Beetle.

At the single location where an Atlas Rainforest Beetle was found during the BAAM (2012) survey, the beetle was located in a 10 cm long burrow beneath a plant root. This burrow was exceptionally shallow, compared to the burrows encountered in the control sites, which all appeared to be in excess of 30 cm (in accordance with the description of a typical burrow given in Monteith and Turco (n.d.)). The length of the burrow was found to be impeded by a small rock, which made it relatively easy to extract the beetle. A year later in 2013, the burrow location was found to have been occupied by a spider (BAAM 2013). In 2014, the burrow was gone.

Through comparison between the Study Area and control sites, it is considered that the Study Area contains habitat that is currently of low suitability for Atlas Rainforest Ground Beetle. As a consequence of this, the beetle is expected to occur at a very low density with microsite colonisation occurring only occasionally as a result of dispersive events, potentially from the plateau to the north of the Study Area. Habitat suitability may be improved through the strategic placement of rock overhangs in microsites with a deep soil layer.




As noted by Sands (2012), Carronia multisepalea and Pararistolochia praevenosa often occur together. The Study Area is no exception, with both plants being present at several locations throughout the area (Figures 3.2, 3.3) and with apparent signs of recent recruitment. The observation of several adults and larvae of Richmond Birdwing indicates that the Study Area contains important breeding habitat for the butterfly. The presence of the vine at multiple transects within the Study Area and its apparent absence within reserve control sites (Appendix 1), gives greater emphasis to the importance of the Study Area in maintaining the local occurrence of this species.

Neither Richmond Birdwing nor its host plant is considered to be threatened in New South Wales. Nevertheless, given the general importance of the Study Area to the local conservation of Richmond Birdwing, it may be appropriate to consider translocating Pararistolochia praevenosa vines that are presently located within the road corridor (Figure 3.3) to areas of lowland rainforest that will be rehabilitated as part of the road upgrade Project (NSW Roads and Maritime Services 2013).

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

The lack of observation of Southern Pink Underwing Moth in the Study Area and control sites during the recent survey and monitoring is considered likely to be due to the below average rainfall season of 2013–2014, especially in comparison to previous years. Data from previous surveys indicates that an important breeding population of the moth is present in the study area.

The relative abundance of Atlas Rainforest Beetle in control sites contrasts strongly with their apparent lack of detection during the recent survey and monitoring in the Study Area. Microhabitat differences between these areas indicate that the Study Area, even areas previously identified as known habitat, may ultimately be of low suitability for the species. There may however be scope for strategic habitat improvement.

A conspicuous, though potentially fragile, breeding population of Richmond Birdwing is

present in the Study Area. Translocation of any host vines present within the road upgrade corridor would be considered likely to provide benefit to the species.

6.0 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE MONITORING

The following are recommended for consideration in future monitoring:

Future monitoring for Southern Pink Underwing Moth should consider past rainfall that could influence activity of this species and hence monitoring results. Monitoring conducted under more suitable seasonal conditions will determine the efficacy of using bait traps as a monitoring approach;

Future monitoring for Southern Pink Underwing Moth should be trialled on a monthly basis during the warmest part of the year (November to March) to reduce the chances of intraseasonal variation affecting the chances of detection;

Future monitoring for Atlas Rainforest Beetle in lowland rainforest adjacent to the Project will be conducted during construction and post construction in accordance with the Management Plan;

Nocturnal monitoring for Atlas Rainforest Beetle should be conducted following an extensive, dedicated search for burrows in the Study Area and should proceed only after one or more burrows have been located;

As per the Management Plan, future monitoring of Richmond Birdwing will occur during construction and post construction and will incorporate transects T1, T2, T5 and C2, in addition to other locations where Pararistolochia vines have been identified (Figure 3.3), to check on the health of vines.



7.0 REFERENCES

Biodiversity Assessment and Management (BAAM) (2012). Ballina to Woodburn Pacific Highway Upgrade Targeted Threatened Invertebrate Study. Report prepared for Sinclair Knight Merz.

Biodiversity Assessment and Management (BAAM) (2013). Supplementary survey for Pink Underwing Moth. Report prepared for Sinclair Knight Merz.

Common I.F.B. (1990). Moths of Australia. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.

Jenkins B. and Morand D. (2002). A comparison of basaltic soils and associated vegetation patterns in contrasting climatic environments. In: Roach I.C. (ed) Regolith and landscapes in eastern Australia. CRCLEME (Cooperative Research Center for Landscape Environments and Mineral Exploration), Australia.

Monteith, G. B. and Turco, F. (n. d.). A Guide to Species of the Ground Beetle Genus Nurus (Coleoptera: Caribidae) in the Lismore District, NSW. Queensland Museum, Brisbane.

NSW Roads and Maritime Services (2013a). Woolgoolga to Ballina Pacific Highway Upgrade Threatened Invertebrates Management Plan. Prepared by NSW Roads and Maritime Services, Aurecon, BAAM and Sinclair Knight Merz.

NSW Roads and Maritime Services (2013b). Woolgoolga to Ballina Appendix E Supplementary Biodiversity Assessment of Submissions/Preferred Infrastructure Report.


Sheringham P.R., Dr. Benwell A., Gilmour, P., Graham M.S., Westaway J., Weber L., Bailey, D., and Price, R. (2008). Targeted Vegetation Survey of Floodplains and Lower Slopes on the Far

North Coast. A report prepared by the Department of Environment and Climate Change for the Comprehensive Coastal Assessment. Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW), Coffs Harbour, NSW.

APPENDIX 1

Preconstruction survey baseline data for relevant invertebrates in lowland rainforest in

the Study Area and at control sites near Meerschaum Vale

APPENDIX A. Preconstruction survey baseline data for relevant invertebrates in lowland rainforests in the Study Area and at control sites near Meerschaum Vale Preconstruction Survey and Nocturnal Monitoring for Conservation Significant Invertebrates Woolgoolga to Ballina Pacific Highway Upgrade for Roads and Maritime Services

BAAM Pty Ltd Page i File No: 0191-010

Table A.1. Summary of data from Southern Pink Underwing Moth assessment sites throughout the Study Area and control transects within Davis Scrub Nature Reserve (C1) and Victoria Park Nature Reserve (C2).

Site name Photo Latitude Longitude

Count of

moths Count

of eggs Count

of larvae

Age of larvae

Evidence of eating

Count of

vines Form of

vines Sex of vines*

Leaf characteristics

Count of

fleshy fruit trees

Percent cover native

species

Percent cover exotic

Total percent canopy cover**

Author Date

PUM1 274 -28.9277 153.453 0 0 0 NA NA 0 NA ? NA 17 50 35 85 LP 18/03/2014

PUM2 276 -28.9277 153.454 0 0 0 NA Earlier in summer 65

Mainly shrub, 1

vine ? Narrow 17 60 10 70 LP 18/03/2014

PUM3 279 -28.9293 153.459 0 0 0 NA Earlier in summer 52 All shrub ? Narrow 34 80 10 90 LP 18/03/2014

PUM4 284 -28.9287 153.458 0 0 0 NA Within past month 8 All shrub ? Narrow 29 85 0 85 LP 18/03/2014

PUM5 285 -28.9282 153.458 0 0 0 NA NA 0 NA ? NA 34 35 15 50 LP 18/03/2014

PUM6 293 -28.9276 153.459 0 0 0 NA None 4 All shrub ? Narrow 34 85 5 90 LP 18/03/2014


Mix of shrub and

vine ? Narrow 34 75 5 80 LP 18/03/2014


Nearly all shrub, 1

vine ? Narrow 34 68 8 75 LP 18/03/2014

PUM9 299 -28.9276 153.467 0 0 0 NA NA 0 NA ? NA 17 65 5 70 LP 19/03/2014

T5 300 -28.9286 153.467 0 0 0 NA Earlier in summer 8 2 vines, 6

shrubs ? Narrow 34 50 25 75 LP 19/03/2014

T1 303 -28.9294 153.466 0 0 0 NA Within past month 160

Mostly shrub, 5

vines

1 female Mixed 34 30 50 80 LP 19/03/2014

T2 305 -28.9292 153.465 0 0 0 NA Earlier in summer 62

Mostly shrub, 11

vines ? Mixed 34 50 15 65 LP 19/03/2014

T3 306 -28.9265 153.47 0 0 0 NA Limited and old 89

Mainly shrubs, 12

vines ? Mixed, often

leathery 17 15 50 65 LP 19/03/2014

T4 310 -28.9253 153.472 0 0 0 NA None 30 Mostly

shrubs, 3 vines

? Broad 17 15 50 65 LP 19/03/2014

C1 315 -28.8665 153.405 0 0 0 NA None 18 Mostly

shrubs, 3 vines

? Narrow 29 75 0 75 LP 19/03/2014

C2 257 -28.9028 153.41 0 0 0 NA Earlier in summer 6

Mostly shrubs, 2

vines ? Narrow 29 90 0 90 LP 19/03/2014

PUM10 314 -28.9205 153.473 0 0 0 NA None 1

Young shrub, poor

condition

? Narrow 0 50 15 65 LP 20/03/2014


BAAM Pty Ltd Page ii File No: 0191-010

Site name Photo Latitude Longitude

Count of

moths Count

of eggs Count

of larvae

Age of larvae

Evidence of eating

Count of

vines Form of

vines Sex of vines*

Leaf characteristics

Count of

fleshy fruit trees

Percent cover native

species

Percent cover exotic

Total percent canopy cover**

Author Date

PUM11 317 -28.9186 153.473 0 0 0 NA

Some old eating may

be attributable

to moths

21 Mostly

shrubs, 4 vines

? Broad, leathery, some hairy new

growth 25 55 0 55 LP 20/03/2014

Table A.2. Summary of data from Atlas Rainforest Beetle assessment sites throughout the Study Area and control transects within Davis Scrub Nature Reserve (C1) and Victoria Park Nature Reserve (C2).

Site name Photo Latitude Longitude Count of Beetle Count of burrows % cover logs % cover rocks % cover overhangs Author Date

ARB1 273 -28.9276 153.453 0 0 5 60 3 LP 18/03/2014

ARB2 276 -28.9289 153.459 0 0 1 90 1 LP 18/03/2014

ARB3 - -28.9286 153.458 0 0 7 65 5 LP 18/03/2014

ARB4 288 -28.9283 153.458 0 0 1 80 10 LP 18/03/2014

ARB5 290 -28.9279 153.459 0 2 potential old, unoccupied burrows 5 60 10 LP 18/03/2014

ARB6 298 -28.9277 153.467 0 0 1 85 10 LP 19/03/2014

T5 302 -28.9286 153.467 0 0 2 70 1 LP 19/03/2014

T1 305 -28.9294 153.466 0 0 1 80 3 LP 19/03/2014

T2 306 -28.9292 153.465 0 0 3 70 2 LP 19/03/2014

T3 311 -28.9265 153.47 0 1 potential burrow, likely unoccupied 1 85 5 LP 19/03/2014

T4 312 -28.9253 153.472 0 0 1 50-95 1 LP 19/03/2014

ARB7 314 -28.9242 153.47 0 0 5 60 5 LP 19/03/2014

C1 317 -28.8665 153.405 0 during day, up to four

observed in burrows during monitoring

10 10 1 5 LP 19/03/2014

C2 032 -28.9028 153.41 0 during day, Up to two

observed in burrows during monitoring

16 10 1 5 LP 19/03/2014

ARB8 314 -28.9205 153.473 0 0 10 3 1 LP 20/03/2014

ARB9 323 -28.9369 153.431 0 1 3 15 2 LP 20/03/2014

ARB10 324 -28.9363 153.428 0 0 5 15 5 LP 20/03/2014


BAAM Pty Ltd Page iii File No: 0191-010

Table A.3. Summary of data from Richmond Birdwing assessment sites throughout the Study Area and a control transect within Victoria Park Nature Reserve (C2).

Site name Photo Latitude Longitude Count of butterfly Count of eggs Count of

larvae Age of larvae Count of vines Health of vines Author Date

RB1 - -28.9276 153.454 0 0 0 NA 1+13 seedlings Good LP 18/03/2014

RB2 285 -28.929 153.459 0 0 0 NA 15 Good LP 18/03/2014

RB3 289 -28.9286 153.458 0 0 0 NA 2+3 seedlings Good LP 18/03/2014

RB4 291 -28.9282 153.458 0 0 0 NA 0 NA LP 18/03/2014

RB5 295 -28.9279 153.461 0 0 1 5th instar 6 Good LP 18/03/2014

T5 301 -28.9286 153.467 1 0 1 2nd instar 1 mature, 30 seedling,5 %

canopy, 2% shrub Good LP 19/03/2014

T1 304 -28.9294 153.466 2 0 0 NA 1 Good LP 19/03/2014

T2 308 -28.9292 153.465 1 0 0 NA 15 Good, 40% canopy birdwing LP 19/03/2014

C2 257 -28.9028 153.41 1 NA NA NA 0

NA; Extensive healthy vine on private adjacent

to reserve

LP 19/03/2014

RB6 319 -28.9207 153.473 0 0 0 NA 1 Good, some old eating LP 20/03/2014

RB7 320 -28.9187 153.473 0 0 0 NA 15 Good, old eating LP 20/03/2014

RB8 322 -28.9196 153.475 0 0 0 NA 1 Good, old eating LP 20/03/2014

Documents

NSW Roads and Maritime Services...Threatened invertebrates Threatened invertebrate species covered by this plan; Southern Pink Underwing Moth ( Phyllodes imperialis smithersi ), and