Gladstone Ports Corporation Report for Migratory Shorebird Monitoring Port Curtis and the Curtis Coast Annual Summer Survey 2015

Transcription

1 Gladstone Ports Corporation Report for Migratory Shorebird Monitoring Port Curtis and the Curtis Coast Annual Summer Survey 2015 Report prepared for Gladstone Ports Corporation March 2015 Wildlife Unlimited Pty Ltd ABN: PO Box 255, Bairnsdale, VIC 3875 Ph:

2

3 Document history and status Version Date Sent to Format Quantity Draft 3 rd March 2015 Megan Ellis, Gladstone Ports Corporation Electronic 1 7 th May 2015 Megan Ellis, Gladstone Ports Corporation Anjana Singh, Gladstone Ports Corporation Electronic 1 Document title: Project: Project manager: Author: Client: Document version: Gladstone Ports Corporation Report for Migratory Shorebird Monitoring Port Curtis and the Curtis Coast, Annual Summer Survey Curtis Coast Shorebird Monitoring Project Jim Reside and Adam Leavesley Adam Leavesley Gladstone Ports Corporation Last saved: 7 th May 2015 File name: Gladstone Ports/2015 February/Report//Shorebird Report February 2015 Cover photo: Curlew Sandpipers and Sharp-tailed Sandpipers at the Cheetham Salt Works (Tamara Leitch, Wildlife Unlimited) Wildlife Unlimited Pty Ltd This report has been prepared for the client in accordance with the agreed terms of the contract. Wildlife Unlimited Pty Ltd accepts no responsibility for use by any other parties. Except as permitted by the Copyright Act 1968, no part of the work may in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or any other means be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or be broadcast or transmitted without prior written permission of Gladstone Ports Corporation and/or Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Advisory Panel. This document has been prepared with all due diligence and care, based on the best available information at the time or publication, without peer review, and the information contained herein is subject to change without notice. The copyright owner shall not be liable for technical or other errors or omissions contained within the document. The reader/user accepts all risks and responsibility for losses, damages, costs and other consequences resulting directly or indirectly from using this information. Any decisions made by other parties based on this document are solely the responsibility of those parties. Information contained in this document is from a number of sources and, as such, does not necessarily represent the views of GPC or the Government. Enquiries about reproduction, including downloading or printing the web version, should be directed to ermp@westernbasinportdevelopment.com.au Citation Wildlife Unlimited Gladstone Ports Corporation Report for Migratory Shorebird Monitoring, Port Curtis and the Curtis Coast Annual Summer Survey Bairnsdale, Victoria. Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page i

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... v 1 INTRODUCTION The Project Environmental Approvals Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program MIGRATORY SHOREBIRDS IN AUSTRALIA EPBC Act listing EPBC Act listed migratory shorebird species METHODS Shorebird Survey Guidelines Study Area Site Selection Survey Schedule Count Procedure Taxonomy and nomenclature Mapping Analysis RESULTS Survey coverage Abundance Estimates Other Migratory Shorebird Species Low Tide Surveys Non-migratory Species Cheetham Salt Works Western Basin Reclamation Area Roost Survey DISCUSSION Summer 2015 results in context The Effects of Construction on Migratory Shorebirds Survey Coverage and Inference Cheetham Salt Works Western Basin Reclamation Area Roost Survey Conclusion Recommendations REFERENCES Appendix 1 EPBC Listed Migratory Shorebirds Appendix 2 EAAF Population Estimates Appendix 3 Timing of Migration Appendix 4 Species time-series Appendix 5 Non-migratory Shorebirds Appendix 6 Variation in S u m m e r M i g r a t o r y S h or e b ird C o u n t s at Corner Inlet, Victoria Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page ii

5 List of Figures Figure 1-1 LNG plant on Curtis Island, February Figure 1-2 The new Wiggins Island Coal Export Terminal, February Figure 1-3 An LNG vessel moving into a berth at Curtis Island, February Figure 2-1 Curlew Sandpiper at the Cheetham Salt Works, February Figure 3-1 Migratory shorebird roost sites in Cheetham Salt Works, February Figure 3-2 The bund wall of the Western Basin Reclamation Area Figure 3-3 Beach Stone-curlew on Curtis Island, February Figure 3-4 A pair of Black-winged Stilts at Clinton Ash Ponds Figure 3-5 Survey sites in the Port Curtis ecological unit Figure 3-6 Survey sites in the Fitzroy Estuary and North Curtis ecological unit Figure 3-7 Survey sites in the Mundoolin-Colosseum-Rodds Peninsula ecological unit Figure 3-8 Survey sites at Cheetham Salt Works, February Figure 4-1 Total abundance estimates of migratory shorebirds on the Curtis Coast Figure 4-2 Species richness of migratory shorebirds on the Curtis Coast Figure 4-3 Ordination of the migratory shorebird data Figure 4-4 Counts of Bar-tailed Godwits on the Curtis Coast, February Figure 4-5 Counts of Whimbrels on the Curtis Coast, February Figure 4-6 Counts of Eastern Curlews on the Curtis Coast, February Figure 4-7 Counts of Terek Sandpipers on the Curtis Coast, February Figure 4-8 Counts of Grey-tailed Tattlers on the Curtis Coast, February Figure 4-9 Counts of Great Knots on the Curtis Coast, February Figure 4-10 Counts of Red-necked Stints on the Curtis Coast, February Figure 4-11 Counts of Grey Plovers on the Curtis Coast, February Figure 4-12 Important roosts on the Curtis Coast, February Figure 4-13 Bar-tailed Godwit roosts on the Curtis Coast, February Figure 4-14 Whimbrel roosts on the Curtis Coast, February Figure 4-15 Eastern Curlew roosts on the Curtis Coast, February Figure 4-16 Terek Sandpiper roosts on the Curtis Coast, February Figure 4-17 Grey-tailed Tattler roosts on the Curtis Coast, February Figure 4-18 Great Knot roosts on the Curtis Coast, February, Figure 4-19 Red-necked Stint roosts on the Curtis Coast, February Figure 4-20 Grey Plover roosts on the Curtis Coast, February Figure 4-21 Lesser Sand Plover roosts on the Curtis Coast, February Figure 4-22 Greater Sand Plover roosts on the Curtis Coast, February Figure 5-1 Latham s Snipe at the QAL ponds, February Figure 5-2 Survey site 11 adjacent to the new Wiggin Island Coal Export Terminal, February Figure 5-3 Clinton Ash Ponds, February Figure 5-4 The site of the gas pipeline near Friend Point, February Figure 5-5 A flock of Marsh Sandpipers at the salt works, February Figure 5-6 Eastern Curlew in the reclamation area during high tide, February Figure 5-7 A helicopter working over the reclamation area during the high tide survey Figure 5-8 Ships operate from the south end of the reclamation area Figure 5-9 No birds were observed roosting on the bund wall Figure 5-10 Eastern Curlew on the mud flat adjacent to the reclamation area, February Figure 5-11 Development activity and migratory shorebird roosts Figure 5-12 Red-capped Plover in the reclamation area, February Figure 5-13 Tugs in Upper Gladstone Harbour, February Figure 5-14 Roll-on, Roll-off vessel in Upper Gladstone Harbour, February Figure 5-15 A coal conveyor constructed across the Wiggins Island tidal flat, February Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page iii

6 List of Tables Table 3-1 Survey schedule for February Table 3-2 Data collected on each survey...8 Table 3-3 Bureau of Meteorology predicted tide heights and times at Gladstone...9 Table 4-1 Summary of survey effort: number of sites and duration for each location Table 4-2 Place names of the roosts with the greatest abundance of migratory shorebirds Table 4-3 Comparison of the number of birds, number of roosts occupied and foraging density of Bar-tailed Godwits between three ecological units in February Table 4-4 Comparison of the number of birds, number of roosts occupied and foraging density of Whimbrels between three ecological units in February Table 4-5 Comparison of the number of birds, number of roosts occupied and foraging density of Eastern Curlews between three ecological units in February Table 4-6 Comparison of the number of birds, number of roosts occupied and foraging density of Terek Sandpipers between three ecological units in February Table 4-7 Comparison of the number of birds, number of roosts occupied and foraging density of Greytailed Tattlers between three ecological units in February Table 4-8 Comparison of the number of birds, number of roosts occupied and foraging density of Great Knots between three ecological units in February Table 4-9 Comparison of the number of birds, number of roosts occupied and foraging density of Rednecked Stints between three ecological units in February Table 4-10 Comparison of the number of birds, number of roosts occupied and foraging density of Grey Plovers between three ecological units in February Table 4-11 Comparison of the number of birds, number of roosts occupied and foraging density of Lesser Sand Plover between three ecological units in February Table 4-12 Comparison of the number of birds, number of roosts occupied and foraging density of Greater Sand Plover between three ecological units in February Table 4-13 Summary of the high tide roost counts by location for non-migratory species Table 4-14 Summary of the roost counts for migratory shorebirds at each survey location Table 4-15 Summary of low tide foraging counts for migratory shorebirds Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page iv

7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2015 annual shorebird monitoring survey was carried out on the full moon spring tide from 4 th - 8 th February. A total of 144 roosts was surveyed over five days at Port Curtis, Fitzroy Estuary, North Curtis, Mundoolin-Colosseum, Rodds Peninsula, the mainland shoreline and the Western Basin Reclamation Area respectively. Permission to survey the Cheetham Salt Works was obtained for the first time since March Seven sites were surveyed on 3rd February, the day before the main survey. This was necessary because the salt works could not be accessed on Sunday 8 th February, which was the scheduled day. Weather conditions for the survey were sub-optimal with strong winds, including two days, 6 th and 7 th February, that were forecast Marine Wind Warnings by the Bureau of Meteorology. Tide heights for the first three days were higher than expected for the Gladstone region, most likely due to the strong winds and low barometric pressure. This resulted in inundation of many the normal high tide roosts and forced the birds onto higher ground, either to other nearby roosts or claypans behind the beach or mangrove line. Survey coverage was comparable to February 2014 and previous summer surveys. However, the number of low tide surveys completed was fewer than usual due to the unsuitable weather. Access to an important roost in the upper harbour of Port Curtis w a s restored following completion of the gas pipeline from Friend Point on the mainland to Laird Point on Curtis Island. This has provided greater certainty about the status of shorebirds in the upper Gladstone Harbour. A total of 13,752 migratory shorebirds consisting of 21 species was recorded on the Curtis Coast during the main survey. This was 18.7 percent more than was recorded in February 2014 and the highest total abundance estimate and species richness recorded during the project. Increases in the number of Red-necked Stints, Great Knots, Bar-tailed Godwits, Greater Sand Plovers and Whimbrels were offset by decreases in the number of Lesser Sand Plovers, Terek Sandpipers, Eastern Curlews and Grey-tailed Tattlers. The 10 most abundant species accounted for 99 percent of the records and this result is comparable to previous surveys. Two rarely recorded species, Latham s Snipe and Little Curlew contributed to species richness. The site of the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project in Port Curtis appears to continue to experience a localised reduction in migratory shorebird numbers similar to that documented in previous reports. It remains unclear whether work associated with development of the Western Basin of Gladstone Harbour has caused significant habitat change or a permanent decline to migratory shorebird abundance. A thorough assessment of the Western Basin Reclamation Area for use by migratory shorebirds as a high tide roost found a small number of birds present. A preliminary assessment of the location of roost sites and foraging areas in the upper harbour raised the possibility that birds feeding on the largest upper harbour foraging ground, the Friend Point tidal flat, may preferentially roost at the Friend Point shoreline or Friend Point claypan rather than at the reclamation area. If correct, a corollary of this conclusion is that the Friend Point roosts are likely to be critical habitat for migratory shorebirds in the upper harbour. Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page v

8 Cheetham Salt Works appears to support an assemblage of migratory shorebirds that is distinctly different from that recorded elsewhere on the Curtis Coast. Ongoing survey of the salt works is important for understanding the shorebird diversity and population dynamics on the Curtis Coast. The increase in total shorebird abundance recorded in 2015 is likely to be due to well-documented variability in migratory shorebird distribution and abundance. The total abundance of shorebirds recorded during summer surveys on the Curtis Coast during this program does not appear to be declining. However considerable variation in space and time has been documented for many species. Understanding why the total number of migratory shorebirds is apparently stable in relation to the constituent populations may assist in future management. It is intriguing to consider whether the apparent stability in total migratory shorebird abundance is coincidental or whether some combination of stochastic processes such as arrival times, weather and prey availability may be interacting to deliver the observed outcomes. Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page vi

9 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Project Development and expansion of port facilities in the Western Basin of the Port of Gladstone is required for the continued growth and operation of the Port of Gladstone ( Gladstone Ports Corporation, 2011). The facilities to be developed or expanded are a key component of the import/export chain for coal and will support emerging industries in the Gladstone region such as liquefied natural gas. Dredging of the Western Basin was required to provide safe, efficient access to the new port facilities. Stage 1A of the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project involved increasing the depth and width of existing channels and swing basins and the creation of new channels, swing basins and berth pockets. For Stage 1A of the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project, a total of 22.5M m 3 of material was removed with 17.55M m 3 of this v o l u m e deposited in a 265 ha land reclamation at Fisherman s Landing. Figure 1-1 LNG plant on Curtis Island, February 2015 The plant is receiving gas and undergoing operational testing. North Passage Island tidal flat is in the foreground. 1.2 Environmental Approvals The Queensland Coordinator-General declared the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project to be a significant project for which an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was required under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (Gladstone Ports Corporation, 2011). An EIS was approved with conditions by the Queensland Coordinator-General on 23rd July The project was also determined to be a controlled action by the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPAC; now Department of the Environment; DoE) under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) on 18th June 2009 (EPBC 2009/4904). Approval under the EPBC was granted on 22nd October 2010, subject to conditions. 1.3 Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Conditions 25 to 37 of the EPBC A c t approval (Gladstone Ports Corporation, 2011) require GPC to develop and implement the Port Curtis and Port Alma Ecosystem Research and Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 1

10 Monitoring Program. The aim of the Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program is to acquire detailed ecological understanding of the marine environment of Port Curtis and Port Alma. This information can be used to monitor, manage and/or improve the regional marine environment and to offset potential impacts from the project on listed threatened and migratory species and values of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and National Heritage Place. The results of the Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program are to be used to inform adaptive management response to observed impacts or potential impacts identified. Condition 33 of the EPBC Act approval requires a study to be conducted to determine the effect of port development activities on migratory shorebirds. During years one and two a comprehensive set of five surveys were to be conducted each year. This report details the results of the third of six annual summer surveys to be conducted in fulfillment of condition 33 (i) which states: single annual summer surveys (October to March) covering the high tide roost sites from years three to eight, with a repeat of the comprehensive surveys during years nine and ten. The objectives of the program are: population censuses of species present; mapping of feeding and roosting sites; investigation of habitat utilisation relative to the lunar/tide cycles and season; and identification of critical characteristics of important habitat. Port development activities that should be addressed include, but are not limited to: dredge vessel movement; pile driving; construction dredging; bund wall construction during dredging; construction of the bund wall; and filling of the reclamation area. Aspects of construction that should be addressed are: noise and associated pressure impacts; light spill; water quality reduction; decreased access to intertidal foreshore habitat; increased sedimentation; and displacement. The design of the shorebird monitoring program was developed by GHD and described in the reports covering surveys 1-4, which took place in January, February, March and August 2011 (GHD, 2011a; 2011b; 2011c; 2011d). The method was reviewed and endorsed by the Environmental Research and Monitoring Program Advisory Panel which was established to oversee the work. This report details the results of the third annual summer survey February 2015 following the established methods. Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 2

11 Figure 1-2 The new Wiggins Island Coal Export Terminal, February 2015 The project is nearing completion and the first shipments are expected in the first half of The coal is conveyed across the Wiggins Island tidal flat (right of picture) to the loading berth (left). Figure 1-3 An LNG vessel moving into a berth at Curtis Island, February 2015 The Neo Energy is a 100,000t Bermuda-registered Greek ship loading from the QCLNG plant on Curtis Island. The first LNG vessel to export from Gladstone was the Methane Rita Andrea, a 96,000t Bermuda-registered British ship which loaded in December bound for Singapore. (Tamara Leitch, Wildlife Unlimited) Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 3

12 2 MIGRATORY SHOREBIRDS IN AUSTRALIA 2.1 EPBC Act listing The Commonwealth Government has listed 36 species of migratory shorebirds under the EPBC A c t (DEH, 2005; DEH, 2006; DEWHA, 2009a; 2009b; Appendix 1). These species regularly visit Australia, traversing the East-Asian Australasian Flyway (EAAF) from northern hemisphere breeding grounds in northern Asia and North America to the over-wintering grounds which encompass the region between India, Australia, New Zealand and the Western Pacific (Bamford et al., 2008). Conservation of migratory species is difficult because their ecology is often poorly understood and they require resources that are distributed throughout a number of jurisdictions. Migratory shorebirds are of particular concern because populations appear to be declining worldwide (Howe et al., 1989; Morrison et al., 2001; International Wader Study Group, 2003; Gosbell & Clemens, 2006; Nebel et al., 2008; Clemens et al., 2010; Minton et al., 2012; Ma et al., 2014; Murray et al., 2015). Listing in the EPBC Act signifies that migratory shorebirds are a matter of national environmental significance and any action that may have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance requires the approval of the federal environment minister. A significant impact is an impact that is important, notable, or of consequence, having regard to its context or intensity. Whether or not an action is likely to have a significant impact depends upon the sensitivity, value, and quality of the environment which is affected; and upon the intensity, duration, magnitude and geographic extent of the impacts. You should consider all of these factors when determining whether an action is likely to have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance (DEWHA, 2009a). Australia has signed a number of international agreements relating to migratory shorebird conservation, including the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar), the Convention on Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention), the Japan- Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA), the China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA) and the Republic of Korea Migratory Bird Agreement (ROKAMBA). The EPBC Act is the key mechanism for meeting Australia s responsibilities under these agreements (DEWHA, 2009b). Two migratory shorebird species which migrate to and from Australia, the Curlew Sandpiper and Eastern Curlew are currently being considered for admission to the EPBC Act threatened species list as critically endangered. 2.2 EPBC Act listed migratory shorebird species The 36 species of migratory shorebirds listed under the EPBC (Appendix 1) exhibit a variety of life history attributes (Marchant & Higgins, 1993; Higgins & Davies, 1996; Hollands & Minton, 2012). These attributes influence the likelihood of their presence in Gladstone Harbour and the Curtis Coast. They also influence the likelihood of detection during surveys (Bamford et al., 2008) so it is important to match the survey method to the attributes of the target species. Key life history attributes include: range in Australia; habitat; roost selection and behaviour; and migration timing. Of the 36 species, five (Swinhoe s Snipe, Pin-tailed Snipe, Asian Dowitcher, Common Redshank and Red-necked Phalarope) are extremely rare in central Queensland (Marchant & Higgins, 1993; Higgins & Davies, 1996; Hollands & Minton, 2012). Another eight (Latham s Snipe, Little Curlew, Wood Sandpiper, Ruff, Pectoral Sandpiper, Sharp-tailed Sandpiper, Long-toed Stint, Oriental Plover and Oriental Pratincole) rarely use marine environments (Marchant & Higgins, 1993; Higgins & Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 4

13 Davies, 1996; Hollands & Minton, 2012) so are unlikely to be present in large numbers in marine ecosystems on the Curtis Coast. The remaining 22 species frequent marine environments, are present on the central Queensland coast (Marchant & Higgins, 1993; Higgins & Davies, 1996) and have been recorded in previous surveys (GHD, 2011a; 2011b; 2011c; 2011d; Sandpiper Ecological Surveys, 2012a; 2012b; 2012c; Wildlife Unlimited, 2012; 2013a; 2013b; 2014). Of these 22 species, most will roost in aggregations at high tide (Marchant & Higgins, 1993; Higgins & Davies, 1996; Bamford et al., 2008). Such roosts can be classified into three broad groups: 1) raised high points such as sand banks, mud banks, sand/shell/gravel bars, sand spits, beaches and islets; 2) mangroves and other vegetation; and 3) rocks, ledges, reefs and shipwrecks. Most of the shorebird species on the Curtis Coast use banks, bars, spits and beaches, while some species commonly use mangrove trees (e.g. Whimbrel, Terek Sandpiper, Grey-tailed Tattler and Common Sandpiper) and others commonly use rocks (e.g. Ruddy Turnstone, Wandering Tattler and Common Sandpiper). It is therefore important to survey all three types of roosts in order to get an accurate estimate of abundance for all species. A further complication is that some species, notably the Rednecked Stint, are known to move to coastal wetlands during the high tide and continue feeding (Higgins & Davies, 1996; Minton et al., 2012). Notwithstanding this possibility, roost counts in marine ecosystems at high tide appear to the best method for obtaining an accurate count of shorebirds on the Curtis Coast (Bamford et al., 2008; Birdlife Australia, undated; DEWHA, 2009b; GHD, 2011c). Work in locating such roosts for this project was completed by GHD and is described in previous reports (GHD, 2011a; 2011b; 2011c; 2011d). A migratory shorebird site in the EAAF is considered of international significance if it supports >1 percent of the population estimate for the flyway (Bamford et al., 2008; DEWHA, 2009a). A site is considered of national significance if it supports >0.1 percent of the flyway estimate. The Australian Government accepts the EAAF population estimates of Bamford et al. (2008) (DEWHA, 2009a; 2009b). Recent EAAF population estimates have been produced by Wetlands International (2015) and these have been added to accounts of species abundance estimates for comparison (see Appendix 2). Figure 2-1 Curlew Sandpiper at the Cheetham Salt Works, February 2015 (Tamara Leitch, Wildlife Unlimited) Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 5

14 3 METHODS 3.1 Shorebird Survey Guidelines DoE (formerly DSEWPAC, DEWHA and DEH) has published guidelines detailing the recommended survey coverage, timing, effort and minimum data requirements for conducting migratory shorebird surveys (DEWHA, 2009b). Survey coverage and effort for this project was determined by DoE in the approval conditions and Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program for the project (Gladstone Ports Corporation, 2011). DoE has helped fund the Shorebird 2020 program via the Natural Heritage Trust and there is considerable agreement between the DoE survey guidelines and the Shorebird 2020 procedures (DEWHA, 2009b). Use of the Shorebird 2020 procedure is desirable for this study because most shorebird observers in Australia are familiar with it. Consequently, training requirements for observers will be minimised and the pool of skilled and experienced observers will be maximised. Over the life of the study this will increase the comparability of the data and minimise difficulty finding suitably experienced survey staff. Timing for the survey was determined using Australian Government guidelines (DEWHA, 2009b), recommendations from previous surveys (GHD, 2011a; 2011b; 2011c; 2011d) and advice from the Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Advisory Panel. Criteria and recommendations for the timing of shorebird surveys are: at a suitable time in relation to the seasonal movements of the species known to be present at the study site; for surveys of roosting sites, no more than two hours either side of high tide; for foraging surveys, no more than two hours either side of low tide; high rainfall and strong wind to be avoided; and periods when disturbance is occurring to be avoided Survey timing The aim of the summer survey is to count the populations of migratory shorebirds that are present on the Curtis Coast during the Austral summer. To determine the range of suitable times for a summer survey in Gladstone, the timing of migration for 23 species that have been recorded during the study was obtained from Marchant and Higgins (1993) and Higgins and Davies (1996). All species of migrating shorebirds that breed in the northern hemisphere and are regularly present on the central Queensland coast are present by the beginning of December (Appendix 3). One of these species, the Curlew Sandpiper, is believed to begin its northward migration in mid-january but no other species are believed to leave before mid-february. This leaves a window of opportunity for counting from December to mid-february. Other considerations for the timing, in order of importance are tide heights, weather, predictable disturbance and the Shorebird 2020 national census date. Spring tides are essential to concentrate birds at roosts and tide heights of >3.6m are desirable. At lower tides, some of the large, important roosts present difficulties when counting i.e. some roosts are difficult to reach by boat (e.g. site C2c, Yellow Patch entrance sandbar; site 2, Curtis Island south end west), flocks may be dispersed over large areas (e.g. site PA16, Deception Point; sites 39 and 39B, Curlew Spit; and site C13, Yellow Patch entrance sandbar) and in some cases birds hide in foliage and walk away from surveyors (e.g. sites 39 and 39B, Curlew Spit). Stable weather is desirable because surveys cannot be conducted in strong wind or rain. This is particularly important in summer because of the possibility of prolonged bad weather associated with tropical cyclones. Major causes of predictable anthropogenic disturbance such as public holidays and fishing competitions should also be avoided if possible. In winter, longer daylight hours are desirable because a five day program causes time constraints during the low tide surveys on the fifth day. The Shorebird 2020 national Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 6

15 census dates are January 15 th date). and June 15 th (or the earliest survey at each location after that Where a single summer survey is required, this will best serve the aims of the Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program if it is carried out when migratory shorebird numbers are at a maximum. This is likely to occur in December and January, but may have to be extended into early February due to the prevalence of prolonged bad weather in the cyclone season. Late- December and early-january should be avoided because of the likelihood of high levels of recreational boat traffic associated with the Christmas holiday period. 3.2 Study Area The study area was centred on Port Curtis, a component of which is the Western Basin, the site of the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project and extended north to the Fitzroy Estuary and south to Rodds Peninsula as defined in the Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program (Gladstone Ports Corporation, 2011). The study area was divided into seven locations for logistical purposes following the method of GHD (2011c): North Curtis; Fitzroy Estuary; Port Curtis; Colosseum Inlet and Mundoolin Rocks; Rodds Peninsula; Cheetham Salt Works; and Mainland foreshore. For the purposes of analysis, the locations were classified into three putative ecological units following the method of GHD (2011c). The ecological units were: Port Curtis incorporating the Mainland foreshore (Figure 3-5); Fitzroy Estuary-North Curtis (Figure 3-6); and Colosseum Inlet- Mundoolin Rocks-Rodds Peninsula (Figure 3-7). Data from Cheetham Salt Works (Figure 3-8) was excluded from analyses using the putative ecological units because of discontinuity of access to the site. 3.3 Site Selection Survey sites were selected to be comparable with the previous summer surveys (Sandpiper Ecological Surveys, 2012a; Wildlife Unlimited, 2013a; 2014). The field work was designed to locate and count as many migratory shorebirds as possible by surveying the largest known and most easily accessible shorebird roosting sites during the two hours either side of a spring high tide (GHD, 2011c). Spring tides tend to have a greater tidal range than average due to the high tides being higher and the low tides being lower. The standard survey path was followed and counting was conducted from the standard survey points (Figure 3-5, Figure 3-6, Figure 3-7) where possible, considering changes in the intertidal zone and variation in tide height. Surveys were conducted at the Cheetham Salt Works in the Fitzroy Estuary for the first time in three years (Figure 3-8). The standard procedure for surveying the salt works was to incorporate it into the mainland shoreline survey on day 5. However, on this occasion it was not possible because day 5 fell on a Sunday and access was not possible for Workplace Health and Safety reasons. Low tide surveys were conducted on the ebb tide within two hours of the low tide. The most important intertidal foraging areas adjacent to the high tide roosts were surveyed from the standard observation points as described by GHD (2011c or from alternative locations with safe access. Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 7

16 3.4 Survey Schedule The field work was conducted for six consecutive days coinciding with a full moon spring tide, from 3 rd -8 th February (Table 3-1). This was one day longer than originally planned because access to Cheetham Salt Works was not available on a Sunday; this work was re-scheduled to the day before the full moon high tide and performed by a single team of two. Table 3-1 Survey schedule for February 2015 The main survey was conducted from 4 th - 8 th February. Date Scheduled locations 3 rd February Cheetham Salt Works 4 th February Port Curtis 5 th February Fitzroy Estuary 6 th February North Curtis 7 th February Colosseum Inlet and Mundoolin Rocks 8 th February Rodds Peninsula, Mainland Shoreline During the main survey, 4 th 8 th February, each scheduled location was surveyed in a single day by two pairs of observers working simultaneously (as per GHD, 2011c). This was done to minimise the possibility that birds would move during the survey, confounding the count. The teams consisted of two experienced shorebird observers equipped with binoculars, a spotting scope with a 20x-60x magnifying lens, a map and a GPS containing the coordinates of all the survey sites. Surveys commenced two hours before high tide and were usually completed within four hours; any counts that took place after this period were included in the dataset provided there was no evidence of birds moving to the foraging grounds. All sites with a history of supporting large numbers of birds were surveyed within the prescribed four hour period. The mainland shoreline survey including the reclamation area was completed at high tide. Further survey of the mud flats around the reclamation area was completed during low tide. 3.5 Count Procedure Shorebirds were counted following the Shorebirds 2020 procedure (Birdlife Australia, undated) recorded on a modified version of the Shorebirds 2020 datasheet (Table 3-2). The procedure largely follows Australian Government guidelines (DEWHA, 2009b) and is commonly used around Australia. Table 3-2 Data collected on each survey Number of observers and their names Date Start time and finish time Shorebird area (Curtis Coast) Count Area Site number and name Location using GPS (datum WGS84) Survey type (land or boat) Tide height (rising, high, falling or low) Wind direction and wind speed Human activity Threats to the birds Species abundance Comments Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 8

17 In fulfillment of the conditions of the EPBC A c t approval, the shorebird species for which data were collected were the 36 migratory species listed in the EPBC guidelines (DEWHA, 2009b). In addition, abundances were also collected for 10 species of non-migratory shorebirds (Appendix 5) that are part of the Shorebirds 2020 program (Birdlife Australia, undated) Roost surveys Roost surveys were conducted two hours either side of the high tide (Table 3-3). The roosts were accessed by boat and the count was preferentially conducted by wading ashore to a suitable location. Where it was not possible to reach the shore, counting was undertaken from the boat. Both observers confirmed species identification and counted each species independently where possible. If birds were flushed care was taken to avoid double counting within the roost or at succeeding roosts. Surveys on the mainland shoreline including the Western Basin Reclamation Area were accessed by vehicle. Table 3-3 Bureau of Meteorology predicted tide heights and times at Gladstone High tide Low tide Date Time Height Time Height 4 th February 09: m 15: m 5 th February 10: m 16: m 6 th February 10: m 16: m 7 th February 10: m 17: m 8 th February 11: m 18: m Foraging area surveys Foraging area surveys were planned to be conducted at each location on the same day as the roost surveys. Surveys commenced no earlier than two hours before the low tide and finished within 30 minutes after the low tide. The surveys were conducted in one of two ways depending on the shape of the intertidal area. Large intertidal flats were surveyed by wading ashore to reach the survey point. Long, linear flats were surveyed from a slow-moving boat. The low tide heights during the survey were relatively high and this meant that the tidal flats were not sufficiently exposed to allow the low tide surveys to commence two hours prior to low tide. The reduction in available low tide survey time and the generally strong winds reduced the number of low tide surveys that could be completed Cheetham Salt Works surveys Cheetham Salt Works is within the boundary of the Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program study area (Gladstone Ports Corporation, 2011) and was surveyed over the first 18 months of the project (GHD, 2011a; 2011b; 2011c; 2011d; Sandpiper Ecological Surveys, 2012a; 2012b; 2012c). During this period, surveys were conducted at five sites within the salt works and at six sites from the Port Alma Road adjacent to the salt works. At the five internal sites, relatively high counts of a suite of migratory and non-migratory shorebirds that were rare elsewhere on the Curtis Coast were regularly obtained from particular concentration ponds (GHD, 2011a; 2011b; 2011c; 2011d; Sandpiper Ecological Surveys, 2012a; 2012b; 2012c) where the salinity and water height generated good foraging conditions (Houston et al., 2012). Records from the six road sites were unpredictable and usually of species that were commonly recorded during the rest of the Curtis Coast survey. Permission could not be obtained to survey within the salt works for the August 2012 survey or subsequent surveys until permission was renewed for February Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 9

18 The salt works were surveyed on 3 rd February 2015, one day prior to the main Curtis Coast survey (Figure 3-8). Although the production area of the salt works is not tidal it is nonetheless preferable that surveys be conducted at high tide to minimise the possibility of double counting of birds that may move between the salt works and nearby sites in the Fitzroy Estuary. The 2015 survey was conducted at mid-tide. The reason for this was that the Gladstone region was subject to heavy rain on the night of 2 nd -3 rd February causing the salt works concentration ponds to be closed to vehicles. Access was permitted on foot to a limited area but this meant that: 1) the whole salt works could not be surveyed; 2) the start time was delayed, and; 3) the time required to complete the survey was longer than planned. As a result, the surveys were conducted at mid-tide and over a limited extent of the salt works site. Figure 3-1 Migratory shorebird roost sites in Cheetham Salt Works, February 2015 Birds were not feeding during the survey and this may have been due to heavy rain the night before which would probably have raised the height of the ponds and changed the salinity and temperature of the water. (Tamara Leitch, Wildlife Unlimited) Western Basin Reclamation area roost surveys Potential shorebird roosting sites on the Western Basin Reclamation Area were thoroughly investigated at high tide during the mainland survey on day five. The survey was conducted in two ways: 1) survey of all sites at the reclamation area, and 2) vehicle traverse of the major reclamation roads and investigation of all likely roost sites (Figure 3-2). Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 10

19 Figure 3-2 The bund wall of the Western Basin Reclamation Area The rock wall and ponds were surveyed for roosting shorebirds. 3.6 Taxonomy and nomenclature Shorebirds were identified using Simpson and Day (2010), Pizzey and Knight (2003), DEWHA (2007), Birds Australia (2010), Message and Taylor (2005) and Hayman et al. (1986). Nomenclature followed Christidis and Boles (2008). 3.7 Mapping Mapping was completed using ArcGIS 10. The base layers were obtained from the Geoscience Australia 1:250,000 series, via MapConnect. The maps were generated using the mainland and islands layers to represent the area above high tide; to this were added the tidal foreshore, sea and waterways layers. The flats layer was included to represent the claypans, the pondage layer represents the Cheetham Salt Works and the built up area shows the location of Gladstone and Tannum Sands to aid with orientation. A roost site layer was created from GPS coordinates obtained during the survey. 3.8 Analysis Detrended Correspondence Analysis was used to compare the patterns of migratory shorebird distribution between the ecological units. The analysis was performed using CANOCO 3.4 (Ter Braak, 1986) following the method of Ter Braak and Smilauer (2002). The analysis was detrended by segment, data were not log-transformed but rare species were downweighted or deleted. The ordination was prepared using the first two axes of the analysis with scaling centred by species. The surveys were classified according to the ecological units for the Curtis Coast as defined by GHD (2011c). Envelopes were placed around the surveys from each ecological unit to better indicate the proportion of ordination space that each bird community occupied in relation to the other communities. Migratory shorebird densities were calculated using the high tide roost data from the February 2015 survey and the area of intertidal flat as determined by GHD (2011a). This is a blunt tool which does not take into account the tidal range or the foraging preferences of each species. It does however serve two useful functions: 1) provides a standardised comparison between ecological units; and 2) helps to contextualise changes in shorebird community composition in Port Curtis Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 11

20 through time. For example, the intertidal foraging area in Port Curtis will be reduced by the planned development and this would be expected to cause a decline in the abundance of migratory shorebirds. However, if the density of migratory shorebirds remains the same then this suggests that the quality of the foraging areas has remained unchanged (i.e. no habitat alteration; DEWHA, 2009b) and increased traffic in the port has not affected the birds they may have become habituated to disturbance as discussed by GHD (2011a; 2011c). In this way the project can be treated as a natural experiment and used to inform migratory shorebird management in Australia and around the world. This report presents some single species comparisons between ecological units between years. This approach has been taken because: 1) it a requirement of the Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program; and 2) the overall number of migratory shorebirds though an important tool for monitoring may conceal the substitution of species within the study area. For example a decline in the type and quantity of prey may lead to the abandonment of a foraging area by one species but the accompanying reduction in competition may facilitate greater use by another species with the result being no overall change in the number of shorebirds at the study site. Figure 3-3 Beach Stone-curlew on Curtis Island, February 2015 The Beach Stone-curlew is a non-migratory shorebird that is listed as vulnerable under the Queensland Nature Conservation Act (Tamara Leitch, Wildlife Unlimited) Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 12

21 Figure 3-4 A pair of Black-winged Stilts at Clinton Ash Ponds Black-winged Stilts are non-migratory shorebirds, usually found in freshwater ecosystems. (Tamara Leitch, Wildlife Unlimited) Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 13

22 Figure 3-5 Survey sites in the Port Curtis ecological unit Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 14

23 Figure 3-6 Survey sites in the Fitzroy Estuary and North Curtis ecological unit Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 15

24 Figure 3-7 Survey sites in the Mundoolin-Colosseum-Rodds Peninsula ecological unit Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 16

25 Figure 3-8 Survey sites at Cheetham Salt Works, February 2015 The Cheetham Salt Works are near Port Alma in the Fitzroy Estuary (see Figure 3.6). Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 17

26 4 RESULTS 4.1 Survey coverage The coverage of this survey was comparable with that of previous years; a total of 144 high tide surveys were completed (Table 4-1) during the five days of the main survey. This was four more than February The total survey time at high tide was 1308 minutes. Access to Cheetham Salt Works was re-established and surveys were undertaken on 3 rd February at mid-tide (n.b. the salt works is not tidal). Completion of the salt works surveys prior to the main survey allowed more time to thoroughly investigate shorebird roosting at the Western Basin Reclamation Area in Port Curtis. The completion of some of the development work in Upper Gladstone Harbour has allowed access to areas that presented difficulty in previous surveys. Access continues to be an issue at one other site in Port Curtis near the Wiggins Island Coal Export Terminal (QGC1). All major roosts were completed strictly within the four hour timeframe, so any late surveys involved only small numbers of birds and did not significantly alter conclusions. All records are time stamped so future analysis could include or discard these records. A total of 27 sites were surveyed at low tide for a duration of 409 minutes. This was nine sites less than was surveyed in February There were two reasons for the decreased survey effort: 1) unsuitable weather conditions meant that no low tide surveys could be completed at Mundoolin- Colosseum and surveys were cut short at North Curtis; and 2) higher than normal low tides meant that the tidal flats were not fully exposed two hours before low tide, as is normally the case. This in turn meant that the commencement of surveys was delayed by approximately 30 minutes. Weather conditions during the survey were sub-optimal due to strong winds. Two days 6th and 7th February were forecast strong wind warnings indicating that the wind strength was predicted to reach knots (48-61km/h). During high tide surveys, <21 percent of sites were surveyed in winds <12km/h and these surveys all took place on the first day of the main survey at Port Curtis. Ten percent of surveys were conducted in winds >28km/h, with the worst days at Fitzroy Estuary, North Curtis and Mundoolin-Colosseum. The wind was slightly stronger during the low tide surveys ranging from 12-49km/h. Australian Government guidelines recommend that surveys avoid periods of strong wind (DEWHA, 2009b). As wind strength increases, the precision of the survey decreases for several reasons: 1) increased wave action causes the boat to move making observation more difficult; 2) increased wind causes spotting scopes to shake making observation more difficult and reducing the magnification at which the instrument can be used; 3) birds tend to become flightier which makes them harder to count and reduces confidence in the assumption that they are not moving between roosts at high tide; 4) birds tend to occupy different roosting locations to escape from the wind; 5) safety considerations restrict access to some sites during high and low tide surveys; and 6) safety considerations increase the size and survey standard of the boats that can be used, and this may further restrict access to sites. The Cheetham Salt Works surveys were conducted on 3rd February in winds of 12-28km/h. The night before the survey, the Gladstone region received c. 75mm of rain. Salt works staff stated that this would have increased the height of the water in the ponds, reduced the salinity, and reduced the temperature. The salt works are not tidal and previous surveys have observed birds feeding regardless of the tide height elsewhere. Birds were not observed feeding during the 2015 surveys and instead were occupying levee banks and other high points in a way analogous to roosting at high tide. Conditions on the claypans adjacent to the salt works were also affected by the rain because they were holding water, which is not normally the case. It would therefore appear that the results of the 2015 survey may not be representative of typical February conditions in the salt works site or the adjacent claypans. Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 18

27 Table 4-1 Summary of survey effort: number of sites and duration for each location High tide Low tide Location Sites Duration (mins) Sites Duration (mins) Port Curtis Fitzroy Estuary North Curtis Mundoolin-Colosseum Rodds Peninsula Cheetham Salt Works* Total * These surveys took place mid way of a falling tide. 4.2 Abundance Estimates Curtis Coast The total number of EPBC Act listed migratory shorebirds at roost counts, excluding the salt works, in February 2015 was 13,752 (Table 4-14, Figure 4-1) consisting of 21 species (Figure 4-2). This figure was 18.7 percent more than the comparable figure in February 2014 (11,589 birds). This was the highest count and highest species richness recorded during the project. Three species were recorded this year but not last year. These were Latham s Snipe (one individual), Little Curlew (one individual) and Common Sandpiper (one individual). Black-tailed Godwit (one individual) and Marsh Sandpiper (one individual) were recorded last year but not this year. The ten most abundant species in February 2014 Bar tailed Godwit, Whimbrel, Eastern Curlew, Great Knot, Red-necked Stint, Lesser Sand Plover, Greater Sand Plover, Grey-tailed Tattler, Terek Sandpiper and Grey Plover were also the most abundant species this year, however there was some variation in the counts and distributions across the region. The foraging density of EPBC Act listed migratory shorebirds across the Curtis Coast was 1.4 birds/ha compared to 1.1 birds/ha last year. At Fitzroy-North Curtis the foraging density was 2.0 birds/ha compared to 1.5 birds/ha last year, at Mundoolin-Colosseum- Rodds it was 1.0 birds/ha compared to 0.9 birds/ha last year, and at Port Curtis it was 0.7 birds/ha, which was the same as last year. It should be noted that the foraging density was calculated using the area of foraging habitat on the Curtis Coast prior to the commencement of the WBDDP. The area of foraging habitat may have changed and this would affect the density estimate. Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 19

28 Migratory shorebird species richness Migratory shorebird abundance (x10 3 ) Report for Migratory Shorebird Monitoring Port Curtis and the Curtis Coast Annual Summer Survey Jan Feb Mar Aug Jan Feb Mar Aug Oct Feb Oct Feb Feb Figure 4-1 Total abundance estimates of migratory shorebirds on the Curtis Coast N.B. Cheetham Salt Works counts have been excluded due to variability of access over the period of the study Jan Feb Mar Aug Jan Feb Mar Aug Oct Feb Oct Feb Feb Figure 4-2 Species richness of migratory shorebirds on the Curtis Coast N.B. Cheetham Salt Works counts have been excluded due to variability of access over the period of the study. Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 20

29 The high tide roost dataset from February 2015 was analysed using Detrended Correspondence Analysis (Figure 4.3). Four rarer species with a weak relationship to the rest of the dataset (Latham s Snipe, Common Sandpiper, Sharp-tailed Sandpiper and Pacific Golden Plover) were removed. CANOCO does have a downweighting procedure for rare species but even with this function enabled, the effect was to obscure the main relationships. The species composition and relative abundance of migratory shorebirds was relatively uniform across all three of the ecological units as defined by GHD (GHD, 2011c): Fitzroy Estuary and North Curtis Island; Port Curtis; and Mundoolin Rocks, Colosseum Inlet and Rodds Peninsula. The differences in the area of ordination space occupied by each ecological unit are a representation of the relative difference in species richness and abundance of migratory shorebirds. The roost sites were distributed in ordination space in relation to three main criteria: 1) the relative proportion of abundant, widespread species such as Whimbrel, Eastern Curlew and Bar-tailed Godwit; 2) the proportion of mangrove roosting species such as Terek Sandpiper, Grey-tailed Tattler or Whimbrel; and 3) whether the roost was dominated by Red-necked Stints or other claypan roosting species. At the top of ordination space is the Whimbrel node. Whimbrels were relatively abundant and present in the majority of roosts at which birds were recorded, including mangroves. They were often recorded roosting solitarily or in small groups and therefore dominated the composition of those roosts. Below the Whimbrel node are the locations of the Eastern Curlew and Bar-tailed Godwit. These two species were also abundant and relatively uniformly distributed across the ecological units and therefore occupy the centre of ordination space. The relative proximity of Whimbrels and Eastern Curlews reflects the tendency of both to roost in relatively small groups, while godwits tended to be present in much larger numbers in a smaller number of roosts. In the right hand bottom corner of ordination space is the node representing mangrove roosting species such as Terek Sandpiper and Grey-tailed Tattler. Two rarer species were also recorded in mangroves, Common Greenshank and Ruddy Turnstone, hence their proximity to the more abundant mangrove-roosting species. To the left of the Whimbrel node is the node representing the species predominantly recorded in claypans, including the records of four large feeding flocks of the most abundant species, the Red-necked Stint. Other species that were predominantly recorded at the claypans with the stints, such as Broad-billed Sandpiper, Greater Sand Plover and Lesser Sand Plover are in close proximity. At the extreme bottom of ordination space is a node representing the species predominantly recorded at the northern end of the Fitzroy Estuary. These were the Great Knot and Grey Plover. Red Knots were always recorded within larger flocks of Great Knots and are therefore in close proximity. Bar-tailed Godwits were also common at these roosts, hence the proximity of this species. A single Sanderling was recorded at a roost with nine other species hence its position at the centre of ordination space. A single Little Curlew was recorded at a site with Eastern Curlew and Red-necked Stint, hence its location between them. Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 21

30 -1 4 Report for Migratory Shorebird Monitoring Port Curtis and the Curtis Coast Annual Summer Survey 2015 W LC EC BbS RnS GSP LSP San RT CG GtT BtG CuS TS GP RK GK -1 6 Figure 4-3 Ordination of the migratory shorebird data Colours represent ecological units following GHD (2011c) Red triangles = Fitzroy Estuary and North Curtis Purple squares = Mundoolin-Colosseum-Rodds Peninsula Green diamonds = Port Curtis Black circles = shorebird species The extent of the envelopes around the roost sites suggests that the composition of the shorebird communities was relatively uniform across the three ecological units. The centre of ordination space was occupied by abundant species which were fairly evenly distributed across the Curtis Coast. Species with distinct patterns of distribution form the extreme nodes. For further description of the patterns see section 4.2. Species codes are: BtG = Bar-tailed Godwit BbS = Broad-billed Sandpiper CG = Common Greenshank CuS = Curlew Sandpiper EC = Eastern Curlew GK = Great Knot GSP = Greater Sand Plover GP = Grey Plover GtT = Grey-tailed Tattler LSP = Lesser Sand Plover LC = Little Curlew RK = Red Knot RnS = Red-necked Stint RT = Ruddy Turnstone San = Sanderling TS = Terek Sandpiper W = Whimbrel Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 22

31 The distribution of large roosts across the Curtis Coast was skewed to the northern end (Table 4-2, Figure 4-12). There were five roosts with >1000 birds. These were Curlew Spit claypan, Shell Point north east side, and Mud Bay in the Fitzroy Estuary-North Curtis ecological unit; Port Curtis south end west claypan in the Port Curtis ecological unit; and Mundoolin Rocks east claypan in the Mundoolin-Colosseum-Rodds Peninsula ecological unit. There were four roosts with birds and these were all in the Fitzroy Estuary-North Curtis ecological unit. A further 14 roosts with birds were spread across the Curtis Coast: four in the Fitzroy-North Curtis area, one in Port Curtis, and nine in Mundoolin-Colosseum-Rodds Peninsula ecological unit. Table 4-2 Place names of the roosts with the greatest abundance of migratory shorebirds Location Abundance Roost > Curlew Spit Claypan 2. Shell Point North East 3. Mud Bay 1. Keppel Creek Entrance 2. Yellow Patch Sandbar Fitzroy-North Curtis 3. Deception Point Claypan - West 4. Cattle Point 1. MacKenzie Island Northern Side Salt Works - Bajool 3. Yellow Patch Sandbar - Mangrove 4. Rundle Beach > Port Curtis South End West Claypan Port Curtis Mundoolin-Colosseum-Rodds Nil Facing Island Sandbar > Mundoolin Rocks East Claypan Nil 1. Williams Bay 2. Central Mangrove Island 3. Mundoolin Rocks opposite 4. Spit End Morris Creek Mouth 6. Bird Island 7. Rodds Harbour Sand Island 8. Colosseum Inlet Mangrove Lagoon 9. Mundoolin Rocks Mangrove 2 A total of 15 migratory shorebirds, consisting of four species (Latham s Snipe, Eastern Curlew, Common Greenshank and Sharp-tailed Sandpiper) were recorded during high tide counts on the mainland shoreline. Of these species, three were rarer elsewhere across the Curtis Coast, reflecting the diversity of marine, freshwater and rocky habitats that are surveyed along the mainland shoreline. The mean abundance of migratory shorebirds on the Curtis Coast in summer calculated from the seven surveys in January and February, excluding the salt works, is 12,127 with a range of 10,387 to 13,752 (Sandpiper Ecological Surveys, 2012c; Wildlife Unlimited, 2013a; 2014). This is a variation around the mean of 86% to 113%. In comparison, the 30 year record of counts at Corner Inlet in Victoria shows a variation of 79% to 137% around the mean (Minton et al., 2012). It would therefore appear that the variation on the Curtis Coast is not exceptional for an Australian location. Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 23

32 Bar-tailed Godwit Count Report for Migratory Shorebird Monitoring Port Curtis and the Curtis Coast Annual Summer Survey Bar-tailed Godwit EAAF population estimate (Bamford et al., 2008): 325,000 1% population estimate for internationally important sites: 3,250 EAAF population estimate (Wetlands International, 2015): 279,000 The Bar-tailed Godwit was the second most abundant species in the 2015 summer survey with 3125 birds recorded at roosts during high tide (Table 4-3; Figure 4-13). This figure was 9 percent more than recorded during the survey in February The figure was marginally below 1 percent of the official Australian Government population estimate (Bamford et al., 2008), but above the more recent Wetlands International (2015) population estimate. Based on the official figure, the 1 percent threshold has been exceeded during one of the past five summers (Figure 4-4). Bar-tailed Godwits were recorded at 24 roosts, three of which were >0.1 percent of the official EAAF population estimate and therefore may be considered an important site (DEWHA, 2009a; 2009b). These were Mud Bay (630 birds) at North Curtis, Mundoolin Rocks east claypan (490 birds), and Curtis Island south end west at Port Curtis (440 birds). Mean flock size at roosts was 130 birds. The greatest foraging density of Bar-tailed Godwits was at the Fitzroy-North Curtis ecological unit and the lowest was at Port Curtis. This species is considered to be in decline across the EAAF (Wetlands International, 2015), but is one of only five that has not declined during 30 years of monitoring at Corner Inlet in Victoria (Minton et al., 2012). Changes in Bar-tailed Godwit numbers are believed to be correlated with their breeding success during the previous Boreal summer. Table 4-3 Comparison of the number of birds, number of roosts occupied and foraging density of Bar-tailed Godwits between three ecological units in February 2015 Location Roosts Total Density 1 Port Curtis Fitzroy Estuary-North Curtis Mundoolin-Colosseum-Rodds Total Foraging density (birds/ha) Feb 2011 Feb 2012 Feb 2013 Feb 2014 Feb 2015 Figure 4-4 Counts of Bar-tailed Godwits on the Curtis Coast, February Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 24

33 Whimbrel Count Report for Migratory Shorebird Monitoring Port Curtis and the Curtis Coast Annual Summer Survey Whimbrel EAAF population estimate (Bamford et al., 2008): 100,000 1% population estimate for internationally important sites: 1,000 EAAF population estimate (Wetlands International, 2015): 55,000 A total of 1098 Whimbrels was recorded on the Curtis Coast in February 2015 (Table 4-4; Figure 4-14). This was 18 percent more than recorded in February The figure was greater than 1 percent of the official Australian Government population estimate (Bamford et al., 2008). The 1 percent threshold has been exceeded every February of this project with the exception of 2014 (Figure 4-5). Whimbrels were present at 55 roosts with the largest at Keppel Creek entrance (250 birds) and Mud Bay (180 birds) both in North Curtis. The 0.1 percent threshold for a site of national significance (DEWHA, 2009a; 2009b) was exceeded at these two roosts. Foraging density was three times greater in Fitzroy Estuary-North Curtis than it was in the other two ecological units. Systematic collection of data relevant to Whimbrel breeding success has not been possible in Australia. However, the limited recoveries of flagged birds suggest that those present on the east coast may use Japanese staging areas on migration. This would mean that they have not been subject to the same degree of habitat loss during migration as birds which use the Yellow Sea (Minton et al., 2012). This species is considered to be in decline across the EAAF (Wetlands International, 2015), but is one of only five migratory shorebird species that has not declined in 30 years of monitoring at Corner Inlet in Victoria (Minton et al., 2012). Table 4-4 Comparison of the number of birds, number of roosts occupied and foraging density of Whimbrels between three ecological units in February 2015 Location Roosts Total Density 1 Port Curtis Fitzroy Estuary-North Curtis Mundoolin-Colosseum-Rodds Total Foraging density (birds/ha) Feb 2011 Feb 2012 Feb 2013 Feb 2014 Feb 2015 Figure 4-5 Counts of Whimbrels on the Curtis Coast, February Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 25

34 Eastern Curlew Count Report for Migratory Shorebird Monitoring Port Curtis and the Curtis Coast Annual Summer Survey Eastern Curlew EAAF population estimate (Bamford et al., 2008): 38,000 1% population estimate for internationally important sites: 380 EAAF population estimate (Wetlands International, 2015): 32,000 A total of 811 Eastern Curlew was recorded on the Curtis Coast in February 2015 (Table 4-5; Figure 4-15). This was 5 percent fewer than was recorded in February 2014 (853 birds). In addition, a single bird was recorded on a claypan adjacent to the salt works on 3 February. The number of Eastern Curlews on the Curtis Coast has exceeded 1 percent of the official Australian Government population estimate (Bamford et al., 2008) on each of the past five summers (Figure 4-6). Eastern Curlews were present at 35 roosts with the largest at: Curtis Island south end claypan (142 birds) and Facing Island claypan (44 birds) in Port Curtis; Spit End (99 birds), Williams Bay (82 birds), Rodds Bay sand island (49 birds) and Mundoolin Rocks east claypan (39 birds) in Mundoolin-Colosseum- Rodds ecological unit; and Keppel Creek entrance (75 birds) and Yellow Patch sandbar (67 birds) in the Fitzroy estuary-north Curtis ecological unit. The numbers recorded at these sites were >0.1 percent of the official Australian Government EAAF population estimate and may therefore be sites of national significance. The foraging density was greatest at Mundoolin-Colosseum-Rodds and least at Fitzroy Estuary-North Curtis. This species is considered to be in decline across the EAAF (Wetlands International, 2015) and is currently being considered for addition to the EPBC Act threatened species list as critically endangered. Flag sightings indicate that Eastern Curlew use southern Japan and the Yellow Sea on the northward migration (Minton et al., 2012). Table 4-5 Comparison of the number of birds, number of roosts occupied and foraging density of Eastern Curlews between three ecological units in February 2015 Location Roosts Total Density 1 Port Curtis Fitzroy Estuary-North Curtis Mundoolin-Colosseum-Rodds Total Foraging density (birds/ha) Feb 2011 Feb 2012 Feb 2013 Feb 2014 Feb 2015 Figure 4-6 Counts of Eastern Curlews on the Curtis Coast, February Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 26

35 Terek Sandpiper Count Report for Migratory Shorebird Monitoring Port Curtis and the Curtis Coast Annual Summer Survey Terek Sandpiper EAAF population estimate (Bamford et al., 2008): 60,000 1% population estimate for internationally important sites: 600 EAAF population estimate (Wetlands International, 2015): 50,000 A total of 782 Terek Sandpipers was recorded at high tide roosts on the Curtis Coast in February 2015 (Table 4-6, Figure 4-16). This was 17 p e r c e n t fewer than was recorded the previous February (937 birds). The number of Terek Sandpipers on the Curtis Coast has exceeded 1 percent of the official Australian Government population estimate during four of the last five summers (Figure 4-7). Terek Sandpipers were present at 22 roosts the largest of which were Facing Island sandbar (282 birds) in Port Curtis, Bird Island (90 birds) in Mundoolin-Colosseum- Rodds Peninsula, and Yellow Patch sandbar mangrove (70 birds) in Fitzroy Estuary-North Curtis. These three roosts exceeded 0.1 percent of the official Australian Government EAAF population estimate and may therefore be sites of national significance. The mean flock size at roosts was 36. The foraging density was greatest in the Port Curtis ecological unit and least in Fitzroy Estuary-North Curtis. It is unclear whether the number of Terek Sandpipers in the EAAF population is changing (Wetlands International, 2015). Table 4-6 Comparison of the number of birds, number of roosts occupied and foraging density of Terek Sandpipers between three ecological units in February 2015 Location Roosts Total Density 1 Port Curtis Fitzroy Estuary-North Curtis Mundoolin-Colosseum-Rodds Total Foraging density (birds/ha) Feb 2011 Feb 2012 Feb 2013 Feb 2014 Feb 2015 Figure 4-7 Counts of Terek Sandpipers on the Curtis Coast, February Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 27

36 Grey-tailed Tattler Count Report for Migratory Shorebird Monitoring Port Curtis and the Curtis Coast Annual Summer Survey Grey-tailed Tattler EAAF population estimate (Bamford et al., 2008): 50,000 1% population estimate for internationally important sites: 500 EAAF population estimate (Wetlands International, 2015): 44,000 A total of 835 Grey-tailed Tattlers was recorded at high tide roosts on the Curtis Coast in February 2015 (Table 4-7, Figure 4-17). This was 6 percent fewer birds than was recorded at roosts the previous February (885). The number of Grey-tailed Tattlers on the Curtis Coast has exceeded 1 percent of the official Australian Government population estimate during every summer of the project (Figure 4-8). Grey-tailed Tattlers were present at 26 roosts spread across the study area. The largest roosts were Central Mangrove Island (200 birds), Mundoolin Rocks mangrove (70 birds) in Mundoolin-Colosseum-Rodds; Yellow Patch sandbar mangrove (175 birds) in North Curtis; and Curtis island south end claypan in Port Curtis. The count at these four roosts was >0.1 percent of the official Australian Government EAAF population estimate and they may therefore be sites of national significance. The foraging density was greatest at Mundoolin-Colosseum-Rodds and Port Curtis ecological units and least at Fitzroy Estuary-North Curtis ecological unit. This species is believed to be declining in the EAAF (Wetlands International, 2015). Table 4-7 Comparison of the number of birds, number of roosts occupied and foraging density of Greytailed Tattlers between three ecological units in February 2015 Location Roosts Total Density 1 Port Curtis Fitzroy Estuary-North Curtis Mundoolin-Colosseum-Rodds Total Foraging density (birds/ha) Feb 2011 Feb 2012 Feb 2013 Feb 2014 Feb 2015 Figure 4-8 Counts of Grey-tailed Tattlers on the Curtis Coast, February Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 28

37 Great Knot Count Report for Migratory Shorebird Monitoring Port Curtis and the Curtis Coast Annual Summer Survey Great Knot EAAF population estimate (Bamford et al., 2008): 375,000 1% population estimate for internationally important sites: 3,750 EAAF population estimate (Wetlands International, 2015): 290,000 A total of 1359 Great Knots was recorded at high tide roosts on the Curtis Coast in February 2015 (Table 4-8, Figure 4-18). This was 128 percent more than was recorded at roosts the previous February (597 birds) and the highest figure recorded during the project. The number of Great Knots on the Curtis Coast has not exceeded 1 percent of the official Australian Government population estimate during the project (Figure 4-9). Great Knots were present at 15 roosts, the largest of which was Cattle Point (400 birds) in Fitzroy Estuary-North Curtis. Foraging density was highest in the Fitzroy Estuary-North Curtis and lowest in Mundoolin-Colosseum-Rodds. The mean flock size at roosts was 90 birds compared to 66 the previous February. Great Knots use the Yellow Sea as a staging area on their northward migration. A 40,100 ha land reclamation at the site of the largest known assembly of Great Knots in the world (Saemangeum in South Korea) was completed in 2006 (Hollands & Minton, 2012). The reclamation is thought to have caused a reduction in the world population of Great Knots from 380,000 to 307,000. Outside of the breeding season, most of the Great Knots in the world are thought to be present in Australia. The species has been declining significantly in Victoria (Minton et al., 2012) and is believed to be in decline in the EAAF (Wetlands International, 2015). Table 4-8 Comparison of the number of birds, number of roosts occupied and foraging density of Great Knots between three ecological units in February 2015 Location Roosts Total Density 1 Port Curtis Fitzroy Estuary-North Curtis Mundoolin-Colosseum-Rodds Total Foraging density (birds/ha) Feb 2011 Feb 2012 Feb 2013 Feb 2014 Feb 2015 Figure 4-9 Counts of Great Knots on the Curtis Coast, February Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 29

38 4.2.8 Red-necked Stint EAAF population estimate (Bamford et al., 2008): 325,000 1% population estimate for internationally important sites: 3,250 EAAF population estimate (Wetlands International, 2015): 315,000 A total of 3852 Red-necked Stints was recorded at high tide roosts on the Curtis Coast in February 2015 (Table 4-9, Figure 4-19). This was 99 percent more than was recorded at roosts the previous February (1796 birds). The exceeded 1 percent of the official Australian Government EAAF population estimate (Bamford et al., 2008) and was the first occasion this has occurred in February during the project (Figure 4-10). The 1 percent threshold has previously been exceeded during both October surveys and was marginally below during the two March surveys and one January survey (see Appendix 4). Red-necked Stints were present at 11 roosts, the biggest of which were Shell Point north east (1599 birds), Curlew Spit claypan (1083 birds), Deception Point claypan (392 birds) in the Fitzroy Estuary; and Mundoolin Rocks east claypan (630 birds) in Mundoolin- Colosseum-Rodds. The birds at these four roosts were observed feeding on the claypans. The count at all four roosts was >0.1 percent of the official Australian Government EAAF population estimate and therefore these sites may be nationally significant. Fitzroy Estuary-North Curtis had the highest foraging density and Port Curtis the lowest. Red-necked Stints present a particular problem when estimating numbers based on counts at high tide roosts. The species is flexible in its use of feeding habitat and moves to coastal wetlands during the high tide (Higgins & Davies, 1996; Hollands & Minton, 2012; Minton et al., 2012) as recorded during this survey. It has been postulated that stint distribution at the Curtis Coast may relate to the amount of moisture in the claypans and this in turn relates to tide height and recent rainfall (GHD, 2011d; Sandpiper Ecological Surveys, 2012a). At Corner Inlet in Victoria, Red-necked Stint numbers have fluctuated considerably over 30 years and this is well correlated with estimates of breeding success (Minton et al., 2012). The species is one of only five migratory shorebirds that has not declined in 30 years of monitoring at Corner Inlet, however it is believed to be declining in the EAAF (Wetlands International, 2015). Table 4-9 Comparison of the number of birds, number of roosts occupied and foraging density of Rednecked Stints between three ecological units in February 2015 Location Roosts Total Density 1 Port Curtis Fitzroy Estuary-North Curtis Mundoolin-Colosseum-Rodds Total Foraging density (birds/ha) Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 30

39 Red-necked Stint Count Report for Migratory Shorebird Monitoring Port Curtis and the Curtis Coast Annual Summer Survey Feb 2011 Feb 2012 Feb 2013 Feb 2014 Feb 2015 Figure 4-10 Counts of Red-necked Stints on the Curtis Coast, February Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 31

40 Grey Plover Count Report for Migratory Shorebird Monitoring Port Curtis and the Curtis Coast Annual Summer Survey Grey Plover EAAF population estimate (Bamford et al., 2008): 100,000 1% population estimate for internationally important sites: 1,000 EAAF population estimate (Wetlands International, 2015): 104,000 A total of 187 Grey Plovers was recorded at high tide roosts on the Curtis Coast in February 2015 (Table 4-10, Figure 4-20). This was 23 percent more birds than was recorded at roosts the previous February (152 birds) and the greatest number recorded in a survey during the project. The number of Grey Plover on the Curtis Coast has not exceeded the 1 percent population threshold (Figure 4-11). Grey Plovers were present at seven roosts with the largest one at Yellow Patch sandbar (62 birds) in North Curtis. The mean flock size at roosts was 26 birds. There were so few records of this species that the patterns observed may not be meaningful. Grey Plover numbers collapsed in 1996 in Victoria and have remained at a lower level since (Minton et al., 2012). Genetic work has shown that virtually all the Grey Plovers in Australia are female and this may increase the species vulnerability to habitat change on the EAAF (Rogers, 2012). The Grey Plover population in the EAAF is believed to be declining (Wetlands International, 2015). Table 4-10 Comparison of the number of birds, number of roosts occupied and foraging density of Grey Plovers between three ecological units in February 2015 Location Roosts Total Density 1 Port Curtis Fitzroy Estuary-North Curtis Mundoolin-Colosseum-Rodds Total Foraging density (birds/ha) Feb 2011 Feb 2012 Feb 2013 Feb 2014 Feb 2015 Figure 4-11 Counts of Grey Plovers on the Curtis Coast, February Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 32

41 Sand Plover Species A total of 1549 Sand Plovers was recorded at high tide roosts on the Curtis Coast in February This was 17 percent fewer than the February 2014 survey (1,865 birds). The 2015 total comprised 1061 Greater Sand Plover, 188 Lesser Sand Plover and 300 sand plover spp. that could not be distinguished. The proportion of birds that could not be distinguished was affected by the windy conditions. Summaries of each species are presented below. The EAAF population estimate for Lesser Sand Plover is 140,000 and for Greater Sand Plover is 110,000 giving a combined total of 250,000. The February 2012 total of Sand Plover spp. was marginally <1 percent of the combined populations suggesting that one of the species may have exceeded the threshold on that occasion Lesser Sand Plover EAAF population estimate (Bamford et al., 2008): 140,000 1% population estimate for internationally important sites: 1,400 EAAF population estimate (Wetlands International, 2015): 68,500 A total of 188 Lesser Sand Plovers was recorded at high tide roosts on the Curtis Coast in February 2015 (Table 4-11, Figure 4-12). A further 300 birds were identified as sand plovers but the species could not be determined. The number of Lesser Sand Plovers on the Curtis Coast did not exceed 1 percent of the official Australian Government EAAF population estimate (Bamford et al., 2008). Lesser Sand Plovers were recorded at eight roosts, the largest of which were Mundoolin Rocks East Claypan (50 birds) in Mundoolin-Colosseum-Rodds; and Deception Point claypan (48 birds) and Curlew Spit claypan (45 birds) in the Fitzroy Estuary. The mean flock size at roosts was 24 birds and the highest foraging density occurred in the Fitzroy Estuary-North Curtis ecological unit. The population of Lesser Sand Plovers in the EAAF is believed to be declining (Wetlands International, 2015). Table 4-11 Comparison of the number of birds, number of roosts occupied and foraging density of Lesser Sand Plover between three ecological units in February 2015 Location Roosts Total Density 1 Port Curtis Fitzroy Estuary-North Curtis Mundoolin-Colosseum-Rodds Total Foraging density (birds/ha) Greater Sand Plover EAAF population estimate (Bamford et al., 2008): 110,000 1% population estimate for internationally important sites: 1,100 EAAF population estimate (Wetlands International, 2015): 79,000 A total of 1061 Greater Sand Plovers was recorded at high tide roosts on the Curtis Coast in February 2015 (Table 4-12, Figure 4-12). A further 300 birds were identified as sand plovers but the species could not be determined. The number of Greater Sand Plovers on the Curtis Coast did not exceed 1 percent of the official Australian Government population estimate (Bamford et al., 2008). Greater Sand Plovers were recorded at eight roosts, the largest of which were Curlew Spit (599 birds) and Deception Point (144 birds) in the Fitzroy Estuary; and Mundoolin Rocks east claypan Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 33

42 (200) in Mundoolin-Colosseum-Rodds. The mean flock size at roosts was 133 birds and the highest foraging density occurred in the Fitzroy Estuary-North Curtis ecological unit. The population of Lesser Sand Plovers in the EAAF is believed to be declining (Wetlands International, 2015). Table 4-12 Comparison of the number of birds, number of roosts occupied and foraging density of Greater Sand Plover between three ecological units in February 2015 Location Roosts Total Density 1 Port Curtis Fitzroy Estuary-North Curtis Mundoolin-Colosseum-Rodds Total Foraging density (birds/ha) 4.3 Other Migratory Shorebird Species The 10 most abundant species accounted for 99 percent of the migratory shorebirds recorded in the survey. Of the remaining 11 species, the counts for each were <50. The abundances obtained for many of the rarely-recorded species using the Shorebird 2020 method may be underestimates. Species which may be dispersed through coastal freshwater ecosystems, such as Sharptailed Sandpiper, Curlew Sandpiper, Marsh Sandpiper, Common Greenshank and Common Sandpiper are likely to be undercounted using the Shorebird 2020 method (Wildlife Unlimited, 2012; Sandpiper Ecological Surveys, 2012c). A recently published account of regular surveys at the Cheetham Salt Works (Houston et al., 2012) assists in better understanding the population dynamics of these species on the Curtis Coast. Additional targeted surveys could help to complete the picture however the vast area of coastal saltmarsh and mangroves is difficult to access and renders any aspiration of a regular exhaustive survey impractical. 4.3 Low Tide Surveys A total of 27 low tide surveys were completed in February 2015, nine fewer than in the 2014 survey. The duration of the low tide surveys was 409 minutes (Table 4-1). The reasons for the reduced survey effort were adverse weather conditions and higher than normal low tides (see Methods for further explanation). A total of 1323 birds comprising 12 species was counted at low tide (Table 4-15). No additional species of migratory shorebirds were recorded at low tide. The figure is not strictly comparable with previous surveys because shorebirds move quickly around the intertidal zone in response to the movement of the tide. It is therefore difficult to replicate surveys even when they occur at the same location. 4.4 Non-migratory Species A total of 874 non-migratory birds of eight species were recorded during the high tide roost counts and Cheetham Salt Works counts (Table 4-13). This compares with 907 birds of seven species recorded in February All the same species were recorded this year as last year plus the Rednecked Avocet. It should be noted that the production areas of the salt works are non-tidal and the surveys took place at mid-tide. The key assumption making roost counting the preferred method for estimating migratory shorebird numbers that the majority of birds congregate in communal roosts at high tide does not hold for all non-migratory species. Consequently, the counts obtained using the method are unlikely to give an accurate estimate of the populations of these species on the Curtis Coast. Nonetheless, collection of the data make the survey comparable with the Shorebird 2020 counts; help describe the distributions of the species; may be a valid index of the populations; and have Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 34

43 intrinsic value as records of presence and abundance. No further analysis was conducted because non-migratory species are beyond the scope of the Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program (Gladstone Ports Corporation, 2011). Table 4-13 Summary of the high tide roost counts by location for non-migratory species. Species PC FE NC M-C RP SW* Total Beach Stone-curlew Bush Stone-curlew Pied Oystercatcher Sooty Oystercatcher Black-winged Stilt Red-necked Avocet Red-capped Plover Black-fronted Dotterel Red-kneed Dotterel Masked Lapwing Total Species PC = Port Curtis including the Mainland Shoreline and Reclamation Area, FE = Fitzroy Estuary, NC = North Curtis Island, MC = Mundoolin-Colosseum, RP = Rodds Peninsula, SW = Cheetham Salt Works. * The production areas within the salt works are non-tidal. Surveys were conducted at mid tide. 4.5 Cheetham Salt Works Seven surveys were completed with a t o t a l duration of 110 minutes. Of these surveys, one was conducted from the interior of the salt works (80 minutes) and the other six were from the Port Alma road (30 minutes). A total of 356 shorebirds were recorded, of which 340 were present at the interior site. Six migratory species and three non-migratory species were recorded. The migratory species were: Marsh Sandpiper (112 birds), Curlew Sandpiper (54 birds), Sharp-tailed Sandpiper (48 birds), Common Greenshank (9 birds), Red-necked Stint (2 birds) and Eastern Curlew (1 bird). No Marsh Sandpipers were recorded during the main Curtis Coast survey, the abundance of Curlew Sandpiper and Sharp-tailed Sandpiper exceeded that of the main survey and the abundance of Common Greenshank was marginally less than the main survey. All four of these species were recorded from the salt works interior site. The non-migratory shorebirds were Black-winged Stilt (2 birds), Red-capped Plover (13 birds) and Red-necked Avocet (1 bird). The stilts and avocet were both recorded from the interior salt works site. Conditions at the salt works were likely to be atypical of normal February conditions because of heavy rain the night before. Salt works staff expected that the height, salinity and temperature of the water in the concentration ponds would have been changed by the rain. Birds were not feeding during the survey and this was unexpected because the ponds are not tidal. Instead they were roosting on the levees and high points within the ponds. Access to the interior survey site was via the levees on which the birds were roosting. A relatively high proportion of the records were unidentified and this was due to flighty behaviour in the windy conditions. Such behaviour would be less likely if the birds were feeding. 4.6 Western Basin Reclamation Area Roost Survey A thorough survey of the Western Basin Reclamation Area at high tide was conducted on 8 th Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 35

44 February to investigate whether migratory shorebirds were using the facility for roosting. The bund wall is similar to a sea wall in lower P o r t C u r t i s associated with the Queensland Alumina Limited refinery which is used by migratory shorebirds for roosting. Nine surveys were completed with a total duration of 16 minutes. The duration represents the time spent in survey at scheduled sites. The total time spent on the reclamation area was 61 minutes. A total of five shorebirds were recorded comprising two species, Eastern Curlew (three birds) and Red- capped Plover (two birds). The Eastern Curlews were recorded from the middle of the southern pond. The reclamation area was subject to considerable disturbance including a lowflying helicopter that appeared to be conducting transects, recreational fishers, and various watercraft. The disturbance may have affected the presence of migratory shorebirds. Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 36

45 Table 4-14 Summary of the roost counts for migratory shorebirds at each survey location. Includes data collected from Cheetham Salt Works on 3 rd February. Species PC FE NC M-C RP SW Total Pacific Golden Plover Grey Plover Double-banded Plover Lesser Sand Plover Greater Sand Plover Latham's Snipe Black-tailed Godwit Bar-tailed Godwit Little Curlew Whimbrel Eastern Curlew Terek Sandpiper Common Sandpiper Grey-tailed Tattler Wandering Tattler Common Greenshank Marsh Sandpiper Ruddy Turnstone Great Knot Red Knot Sanderling Red-necked Stint Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Curlew Sandpiper Broad-billed Sandpiper Sand Plover spp Tattler/Terek spp Unidentified medium wader Unidentified small wader Total abundance Total species PC = Port Curtis including the Mainland Shoreline and Reclamation Area, FE = Fitzroy Estuary, NC = North Curtis Island, MC = Mundoolin-Colosseum, RP = Rodds Peninsula, SW = Cheetham Salt Works. Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 37

46 Figure 4-12 Important roosts on the Curtis Coast, February 2015 Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 38

47 Figure 4-13 Bar-tailed Godwit roosts on the Curtis Coast, February 2015 Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 39

48 Figure 4-14 Whimbrel roosts on the Curtis Coast, February 2015 Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 40

49 Figure 4-15 Eastern Curlew roosts on the Curtis Coast, February 2015 Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 41

50 Figure 4-16 Terek Sandpiper roosts on the Curtis Coast, February 2015 Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 42

51 Figure 4-17 Grey-tailed Tattler roosts on the Curtis Coast, February 2015 Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 43

52 Figure 4-18 Great Knot roosts on the Curtis Coast, February, 2015 Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 44

53 Figure 4-19 Red-necked Stint roosts on the Curtis Coast, February 2015 Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 45

54 Figure 4-20 Grey Plover roosts on the Curtis Coast, February 2015 Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 46

55 Figure 4-21 Lesser Sand Plover roosts on the Curtis Coast, February 2015 Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 47

56 Figure 4-22 Greater Sand Plover roosts on the Curtis Coast, February 2015 Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 48

57 Table 4-15 Summary of low tide foraging counts for migratory shorebirds. Low tide counts were not scheduled for the Cheetham Salt Works and could not be completed at Mundoolin-Colosseum because of adverse weather conditions. Species PC FE NC RP Total Latham's Snipe Bar-tailed Godwit Little Curlew Whimbrel Eastern Curlew Marsh Sandpiper Common Greenshank Terek Sandpiper Common Sandpiper Grey-tailed Tattler Ruddy Turnstone Great Knot Red Knot Sanderling Red-necked Stint Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Curlew Sandpiper Broad-billed Sandpiper Pacific Golden Plover Grey Plover Lesser Sand Plover Greater Sand Plover Sand Plover spp Unidentified large wader Unidentified medium wader Unidentified small wader Total Total species PC = Port Curtis including the mainland shoreline, FE = Fitzroy Estuary, NC = North Curtis, M-C = Mundoolin Colosseum, RP = Rodds Peninsula, SW = Cheetham Salt Works Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 49

58 5 DISCUSSION 5.1 Summer 2015 results in context Interannual variability in migratory shorebird populations is high and this makes the detection of trends in the data very difficult (DEWHA, 2009b; Wilson et al., 2011; Minton et al., 2012). In order to address this issue, the Queensland Wader Studies Group funded the University of Queensland to analyse data collected over 16 years at Moreton Bay. The paper which was subsequently published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Conservation Biology describes the problem (Wilson et al., 2011): Abundances and estimates of abundances of migratory species may be expected to be particularly variable because the animals are highly mobile, different stages of their life cycle occur in different places, and their wide spatial extent and high abundance create logistical difficulties in coordinating abundance estimation and monitoring (Piersma & Baker, 2000; Piersma, 2007). All these sources of variability make the robust detection of trends difficult because it is challenging to eliminate noise, and unless monitoring or analysis methods account for this variability, changes in abundance may go undetected. When the abundance of different species in an assemblage of both migrants and nonmigrants has different sources of variability, identifying trends can be extremely difficult. Another paper which addresses the issue was published by the Victorian Wader Studies Group (Minton et al., 2012). At Corner Inlet in Victoria, a 30-year record obtained using a standardised counting procedure showed a 23 percent decline in total migratory shorebird abundance in summer (Appendix 6). The average total abundance was 31,493 birds but the range was 22,065 43,041 (79% - 137% of the average). Species abundances also exhibited high variability. For example, the Bar-tailed Godwit had an average summer abundance of 10,080 and a range of ,139 (69% - 130% of the average). Other species which were less abundant at Corner Inlet had even larger fluctuations in numbers throughout the period. The total abundance recorded for the Curtis Coast February 2015 summer survey was 18.7 percent more than the 2014 survey. The overall increase was mainly due to a 99 percent increase in the number of Red-necked Stints (total of 3852 birds) and a 128 percent increase in the number of Great Knot (total of 1359 birds). Other species with increased abundances were Bar-tailed Godwit, Greater Sand Plover and Whimbrel. The increases were offset by decreases in the number of Little Sand Plover by 81 percent (total of 188 birds), Terek Sandpiper, Grey-tailed Tattler and Eastern Curlew. Conditions for shorebird counting were sub-optimal with strong winds predominating. The general effect of windy conditions is to reduce detectability causing a tendency to record fewer birds and fewer species (DEWHA, 2009a; Rogers et al., 2006a). A general impression from the 2015 survey was that birds appeared to prefer sheltered roosts over less sheltered roosts. An example is the pair of nearby large roosts at Yellow Patch at North Curtis: Yellow Patch sandbar and Mud Bay. Yellow Patch sandbar is consistently supports >1,000 birds while Mud Bay usually supports a few hundred. Mud Bay is sheltered from the east and this year there were more birds recorded there than at Yellow Patch sandbar. The key factor in the increase in migratory shorebird abundance was the increase in Red-necked Stints. Red-necked Stints are flexible and opportunistic such that they do not always occupy roosts during high tide, preferring to feed in coastal wetlands. Previous reports have noted this issue as a source of unquantified variation. Two days prior to the survey, the Gladstone region experienced heavy rainfall so that the wetlands were charged with water and four large flocks of Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 50

59 foraging stints were detected feeding on the wet claypans. Irrespective of any reduction in the precision of the counts of stints due to the strong winds, the detections of large foraging flocks contributed to an increase in overall shorebird abundance. Figure 5-1 Latham s Snipe at the QAL ponds, February 2015 (Jimmy Choi, University of Queensland) 5.2 The Effects of Construction on Migratory Shorebirds The effect of construction in Port Curtis on migratory shorebirds appears to have varied from placeto-place. On the mainland shoreline, migratory shorebirds appear to have declined and this has been attributed to development and disturbance (Sandpiper Ecological Surveys, 2012b; 2012c; Wildlife Unlimited, 2012). Two roost sites have been subject to development. These are site QGC1 where the Wiggins Island Coal Export Terminal is in the late stages of construction (Figure 5-2, Figure 5-15) and site 32B Clinton Ash Ponds (Figure 5-3). It is assumed that the QGC1 roost no longer supports birds and at Clinton Ash Ponds the count during this survey was 10. In contrast, the first survey for this project at Clinton Ash Ponds in January 2011 returned a total of 146 migratory shorebirds. In the upper harbour, a gas pipeline was constructed through Friend Point close to two roosts (Figure 5-4). Prior to construction in January 2011, 188 birds were recorded at the Friend Point shoreline. In comparison, a combined total of 74 birds was recorded during the February 2015 survey. Similarly, the roost at South Passage Island returned a count of 235 in January 2011 and only 20 in February Roost sites that have been taken over for development constitute a long-term loss of habitat and therefore may reduce the shorebird carrying capacity of the study site (DEWHA, 2009b; Rogers et al., 2006b; 2006c). However, while it appears that proximity to construction activity has disturbed migratory shorebirds in the upper harbour, it remains unclear if the observations represent significant or permanent change. Another potential cause of migratory shorebird decline in the upper harbour of Port Curtis is a reduction in foraging habitat. Dredging may cause changes in the distribution of the tidal flats on which shorebirds feed. Hydrological modeling predicts some loss of tidal flats within the Western Basin associated with dredging (GHD, 2011c). A reduction in the area of foraging habitat associated with the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project will affect the foraging density estimates produced for this report. Updated estimates of the foraging area are required to maintain confidence in the density estimates. Differentiating between the various activities associated with construction was difficult because all Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 51

60 the specified activities were occurring in the area surrounding the roosts and in close proximity to the intertidal foraging areas (Figure 5-13, 5-14, 5-15). The cessation of the specific construction activities could present an opportunity to assess whether migratory shorebird populations recover, but the likelihood is slim that robust evidence linking changes in migratory shorebird populations to specific construction activities can be obtained using the present methods. Similarly, the present methods offer little scope for determining the relative effects of aspects of construction such as noise compared to light spill or water quality. Conclusions on this topic are therefore likely to be speculative and generalised. In addition, it remains possible that the cause of the reduction in the number of migratory shorebirds recorded in the upper harbour of Port Curtis was habitat alteration (DEWHA, 2009b). An example of habitat alteration would be changes in prey type and abundance caused by changes to the coastal ecosystem as a result of dredging. Such changes could affect shorebird populations but would not be directly detectable using the Shorebird 2020 method. Figure 5-2 Survey site 11 adjacent to the new Wiggin Island Coal Export Terminal, February 2015 A total of seven Whimbrel and one Eastern Curlew was recorded. Site QGC1 was within the construction area and could not be surveyed. Figure 5-3 Clinton Ash Ponds, February 2015 The site was subject to works in August 2012 and appears to have been subject to further work recently. Five Sharp-tailed Sandpipers, four Common Greenshanks and one Eastern Curlew were recorded during this survey. Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 52

61 Figure 5-4 The site of the gas pipeline near Friend Point, February 2015 Survey site 6 is out of picture to the immediate right. Survey site 7 is the claypan at the middle left of the picture. Birds are believed to preferentially roost at site 6 but move to site 7 when site 6 is inundated by the highest tides. 5.3 Survey Coverage and Inference The geographical coverage and duration of the 10-year shorebird monitoring project appears suitable to meet the primary aim of monitoring the migratory shorebird populations of the Curtis Coast during a major construction phase and in the period of increased human utilisation after. The project area allows for comparison of the main work site in the Western Basin with the rest of Port Curtis. Assuming no significant change occurs to the conditions for migratory shorebirds on the eastern side of Port Curtis, inference may be drawn about the effects of the construction work and the subsequent increase in human activity in the Western Basin. Should the increase in port capacity also affect shorebirds in the Eastern Basin of Port Curtis, the inclusion of Fitzroy Estuary, Mundoolin Inlet, Colosseum Inlet and Rodds Harbour allows a further comparison to be made because any effects on shorebirds in these locations are expected to be much attenuated (e.g. recreational boat traffic may increase due to an increased human population in the Gladstone district resulting from increased employment opportunities provided by the expansion of the port). Survey of the wider Curtis Coast also provides baseline information for other areas that may be subject to development in the future. The use of the Shorebird 2020 method allows comparison with other regularly counted sites on the Queensland coast such as Moreton Bay and other sites across Australia, New Zealand and the whole EAAF. This is important because migratory shorebird populations across the EAAF are declining (MacKinnon et al., 2012; Wetlands International, 2015). If the estimates of the rate of decline by MacKinnon et al (2012) are correct and continue, then by the end of this project in 2020, counts for some of the species on the Curtis Coast may have reduced by 50 percent. Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 53

62 The effects of the various construction activities specified in the Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program (Gladstone Ports Corporation, 2011) cannot be easily separated from each other using the present approach (Section 5.2). The reason is that most of the construction work is happening in the same place and at the same time. For the purposes of the present survey and reporting, the Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program is interpreted to mean that all effects of the construction work of the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project are to be considered. Detailed investigation of habitat utilisation is difficult to achieve using the present method. Conclusions will be limited to what can be determined from broad differences between parts of the study site as discussed in previous reports (GHD, 2011c; Sandpiper Ecological Surveys, 2012b). 5.4 Cheetham Salt Works The Cheetham Salt Works was surveyed as part of this project for the first time since March 2012 (Figure 5-5). Operational constraints prevented the survey being completed as part of the main Curtis Coast survey. The work was completed one day prior to the main survey, encompassing a limited extent of the sites previously surveyed within the salt works, and conducted at mid-tide. Nonetheless, the results confirm previous work that indicates that the salt works supports a shorebird community which is distinct from that recorded in the main survey. It is therefore an important component of migratory shorebird diversity on the Curtis Coast and should continue to be surveyed for this project. The collection of data from the salt works has been discontinuous both in terms of access to the mine site as a whole and the choice of specific sites that were surveyed when access was available (GHD, 2011a; 2011b; 2011c; 2011d; Sandpiper Ecological Surveys, 2012a; 2012b; 2012c). This means that it is difficult to incorporate the salt works data into a meaningful annual estimate or index of migratory shorebird abundance and species richness on the Curtis Coast. We plan to continue to exclude the salt works data from the annual comparative estimates. Completion of all 11 salt works sites during the mainland shoreline survey within the four hour high tide window is not practical. The work schedule is Tannum Sands, Gladstone, Western Basin Reclamation Area, the salt works and then back to the Western Basin Reclamation Area to conduct low tide counts. Survey of the internal salt works survey sites is not straightforward because the sites are distributed among tributaries of the Fitzroy River and require access by four wheel drive vehicle along dry weather roads. Some rationalisation or prioritisation of the work program is required prior to the 2016 annual summer survey. Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 54

63 Figure 5-5 A flock of Marsh Sandpipers at the salt works, February 2015 (Tamara Leitch, Wildlife Unlimited) 5.5 Western Basin Reclamation Area Roost Survey An assessment of the Western Basin Reclamation Area as a roosting site for migratory shorebirds confirmed its use by three Eastern Curlews. The birds were observed in the centre of the southern pond, a landscape analogous to a claypan (Figure 5-6). No migratory shorebirds were observed on the rock walls of the bund and we speculate that two factors may have contributed to this: 1) the reclamation was subject to continuous disturbance from a range of anthropogenic sources (Figure 5-7, Figure 5-8); and 2) the rock walls may have been too high and too steep to allow observation for predators such as White-bellied Sea-eagles (Haliaeetus leucogaster) until they were close (Figure 5-9). N.B. Australian Government guidelines (DEWHA, 2009a) state: Generally, migratory shorebirds prefer roosting sites in open habitat on slightly elevated ground so they can watch for potential predators. During the low tide foraging counts, four Eastern Curlews were observed on the mud flat immediately adjacent to the reclamation area (Figure 5-10). Energy conservation is vital for migratory shorebirds (Rogers et al., 2006b) and it has been demonstrated that some species are faithful to small areas of foraging habitat near to roosting sites (Rogers et al., 2006c). This raises the possibility that the Eastern Curlew in the southern pond were some of the same birds observed on the mud flat immediately adjacent to the reclamation area. The southern pond of the reclamation is roughly the same distance from the foraging grounds as the next nearest known migratory shorebird roosting site on the Friend Point claypan (Figure 5-11). Previous work for this project has suggested that migratory shorebirds preferentially use the Friend Point shoreline roost but move to the claypan when the tide inundates the shoreline roost (Sandpiper Ecological Surveys, 2012c). Records from the two sites have demonstrated that the combined capacity of the Friend Point claypan and the Friend Point shoreline roosts is in excess of 150 birds (Wildlife Unlimited, 2014). Use of both Friend Point roosts may have been disrupted by the construction of the gas pipeline to the LNG plants (Wildlife Unlimited, 2012; 2013a) however that work has been completed. The two Friend Point roosts are closer to the largest feeding ground in the upper harbour than the Western Basin Reclamation Area is, and they also appear to be subject to fewer disturbances. It is therefore not immediately clear why the Western Basin Reclamation Area would be a more attractive place to roost than Friend Point. GPC has commissioned University of Queensland scientists with expertise in radio telemetry to investigate these issues in more detail. A corollary of Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 55

64 our preliminary assessment is that the two Friend Point roosts may constitute critical migratory shorebird habitat in the upper harbour. It should be noted that non-migratory shorebird (e.g. Figure 5-12) abundance on the Western Basin Reclamation Area also appears low. Figure 5-6 Eastern Curlew in the reclamation area during high tide, February 2015 These three birds were present in the south pond. (Tamara Leitch, Wildlife Unlimited) Figure 5-7 A helicopter working over the reclamation area during the high tide survey. (Tamara Leitch, Wildlife Unlimited) Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 56

65 Figure 5-8 Ships operate from the south end of the reclamation area Figure 5-9 No birds were observed roosting on the bund wall The wall may be too high and too steep to provide a roost safe from predators. Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 57

66 Figure 5-10 Eastern Curlew on the mud flat adjacent to the reclamation area, February 2015 (Tamara Leitch, Wildlife, Unlimited) Figure 5-11 Development activity and migratory shorebird roosts Existing roost sites are closer to most foraging areas than the W e s t e r n B a s i n Reclamation Area (Image from Google maps). Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 58

67 Figure 5-12 Red-capped Plover in the reclamation area, February 2015 This species is non-migratory. (Tamara Leitch, Wildlife Unlimited) 5.6 Conclusion Survey coverage was comparable to February 2014 and previous summer surveys. Therefore the results meet a key objective of the Ecological Research and Monitoring Program that populations of migratory shorebirds across the Curtis Coast are monitored during the Austral summer. The total abundance of migratory shorebirds on the Curtis Coast does not appear to have declined since the program began. The program has provided valuable knowledge about the distribution of migratory shorebirds on the Curtis Coast however population dynamics are not well enough understood to draw any firm conclusions about the trajectories of the constituent species. Many migratory shorebird species on the Curtis Coast have exhibited considerable variation in time and space and it is not safe to assume that stability in total migratory shorebird abundance indicates that all migratory shorebird populations are stable. Shorebird abundance at sites that were subject to construction disturbance generally appeared lower than at the beginning of the project, but this affect was not uniform. It remains unclear whether the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project activities have caused significant habitat change or a permanent decline to migratory shorebird abundance in the upper harbour. It is also difficult using the present methods to determine the differential affects on migratory shorebirds (if any) of the various projects underway in Gladstone Harbour such as the Wiggins Island Coal Export Terminal, the Curtis Island LNG developments or any other changes in the patterns of use of Gladstone Harbour that have occurred since migratory shorebird monitoring began. Permission to survey the Cheetham Salt Works was obtained for the first time since March The results confirmed that the salt works supports an assemblage of migratory shorebirds that is distinctly different from that recorded elsewhere on the Curtis Coast. A thorough assessment of the Western Basin Reclamation Area for use by migratory shorebirds as a high tide roost found a small number of birds present. A preliminary assessment of the location of roost sites and foraging areas in the upper harbour raised the possibility that birds feeding on the largest upper harbour foraging ground, the Friend Point tidal flat, may preferentially roost at either of the Friend Point roosts rather than at the reclamation area. If correct, a corollary of this conclusion is that the Friend Point roosts are likely to be critical habitat for migratory shorebirds in the upper harbour. Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 59

68 5.7 Recommendations A number of recommendations have arisen from this survey. The recommendations are intended to: 1) improve the alignment of the program against the objectives for the shorebird program defined in the Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program (Gladstone Ports Corporation, 2011) and improve the efficiency and value of the work. 1. Access to roost site QGC1 which is near the Wiggins Island Coal Export Terminal should be thoroughly investigated during the February 2016 annual summer survey. 2. The area of tidal flats in the Upper Harbour of Port Curtis should be re-calculated before the Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program concludes so that the area of suitable shorebird foraging habitat can be updated. 3. It is impractical for the mainland shoreline survey schedule to be completed within the four hour high tide window and therefore advice on rationalisation or prioritisation of the schedule is required prior to the next annual survey. 4. GPC and the Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Advisory Panel should clarify there expectations for collaboration and liaison between shorebird consultants by 15th November 2015 so that appropriate arrangements can be made in a timely manner. 5. Following the agreed scheduling guidelines, the next annual summer survey is due on the new moon 9th-13th February In the event of unsuitable weather, the next spring tide is due on the full moon 23rd-27th February. 6. During the final two years of intensive survey, the best value for effort will be obtained by collecting two full sets of data from the same shorebird migration season (not the same calendar year). This would include southward migration, summer (x2), northward migration and winter. To do this would require that the intensive survey program re-commence in October 2018 (the third last year of the project) with the final survey of the second intensively monitored shorebird migration season taking place in August Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 60

69 Figure 5-13 Tugs in Upper Gladstone Harbour, February 2015 GPC has ordered five new 80t tugs to support the LNG industry. Figure 5-14 Roll-on, Roll-off vessel in Upper Gladstone Harbour, February 2015 Figure 5-15 A coal conveyor constructed across the Wiggins Island tidal flat, February 2015 Report prepared by Wildlife Unlimited for Gladstone Ports Corporation Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Page 61