Northern Greater Glider
CURRENT STATUS: VULNERABLE
(Nature Conservation Act 1992).
*This species was only formally recognised as a distinct species in July 2022, and was listed as Vulnerable at the same time.
*It relies on hollows in large trees for survival. It takes 150-260years for trees to reach the requirements of the species. (^1)
The development will result in the clearance of 534.0 ha of denning habitat and 368.6 ha of foraging habitat. (902.6ha / 2230.37acres combined). As the developmnet area represents a large contiguous area of eucalypt forest which contains mature hollow bearing trees and a diverse range of the species’ preferred food species particular to that region, it can be considered as habitat critical to the survival of the species. (^1)
'Despite the sensitive design measures and the avoidance, minimisation and mitigation measures proposed, the project is assessed as having a potential significant residual impact on the northern greater glider.' (^2)
(^1). Public Environment Report 3rd Nov 2022
(^2). Source: Chalumbin Wind Farm EPBC Act referral.
NORTHERN GREATER GLIDER
Photo credit: Yu Ota
AAK Nature Watch
Red Goshawk (Erthrotriorchis radiatus)
CURRENT STATUS: ENDANGERED
(Nature Conservation Act 1992).
In a 2009 report on the Red Goshawk , the Qld population of this species was estimated at just 135-140 pairs. (^1) [G. V. Czechura, R. G. Hobson and D. A. Stewart]
This species is under extreme threat, and is the subject of a National Recovery Plan.
A nest considered by the developer to be 'highly likely' to belong to the Red Goshawk nest was found within the proposed development area.
This nest has been the subject of what could only be described as part of a deliberate attempt to deceive the community and the federal government. Here are three versions of the story - the latter two both taken from the same document!
MNES REPORT CHALUMBIN WIND FARM VOLUME (page 92) 22/06/2021
‘A nest considered highly likely to belong to red goshawk was observed in the Glen Gordon property, in riparian vegetation to the north of the main property access road. The nest was unoccupied (as would be expected in late January) but appeared to have been recently built (no older than the 2019-20 breeding season). Photographs of the nest were sent to a number of recognised red goshawk experts; one (a QPWS ranger) confirmed the nest as belonging to the red goshawk while two others considered it was ‘possibly’ belonging to the red goshawk.’
DRAFT PER CHALUMBIN WIND FARM (page 114) 03/11/2022
‘A nest considered possibly belonging to red goshawk was observed in the Project area in January 2021, in riparian vegetation. The nest was unoccupied (as would be expected in late January) but appeared to have been recently built (no older than the 2019-20 breeding season). Photographs of the nest were sent to four recognised red goshawk experts; one (a QPWS ranger) stated the nest was likely to belong to the red goshawk while two others considered it was ‘possibly’ belonging to the red goshawk (the fourth did not respond).’
DRAFT PER CHALUMBIN WIND FARM (page 152) 03/11/2022
‘In January 2021 a nest considered as possibly belonging to red goshawk was observed in the Glen Gordon property, in riparian vegetation to the north of the main property access road. The nest was unoccupied (as would be expected in late January) but appeared to have been recently built (no older than the 2019-20 breeding season). Photographs of the nest were sent to a number of recognised bird specialists (including a QPWS ranger, a member of BirdLife Australia, a staff member of the AWC and another experienced ornithologist); one agreed the nest resembled that of a red goshawk, two others considered it was ‘possibly’ belonging to a red goshawk and one was certain that the nest was not that of a red goshawk but instead belonged to a grey goshawk (a non-threatened species that was observed during surveys).’
So, to summarise by the first account photographs were sent to recognised Red Goshawk experts. That story is maintained in the second account though is expanded on from ‘a number’ of experts to four. By the third account the photos were no longer sent to recognised Red Goshawk experts, but rather ‘recognised bird specialists.’ Keep in mind the 2nd and 3rd version are from the same document the draft PER!
One of the few details that remains unchanged throughout is that the occupation of one of the four was a QPWS ranger. However what he said markedly changes. In the initial version he ‘confirmed the nest as belonging to the Red Goshawk.’ In the 2nd version he stated the nest was ‘likely to belong to the red goshawk’. By the third version he’d ‘agreed the nest resembled that of a red goshawk’.
In version one we have one confirmed Red Goshawk nest ID and two possible. In version two we have one likely, and two possible. (In the 2nd version it is advised that the fourth expert did not respond with an opinion). Then miraculously - in the same document, we have a completely different version! In version three one expert said it resembled a red goshawk nest, two said it was a possibility and one was certain that it was not a red goshawk but instead belonged to a non-threatened species! How wonderfully convenient!
'The Project may lead to the clearing of 165ha (407.72 acres) of habitat critical to the survival of the species, and 1024.86ha (2532.48), of potential habitat for the species.' (^2)
'Despite the sensitive design measures and the avoidance, minimisation and mitigation measures proposed, the Project is conservatively assessed as having a potential significant residual impact on the red goshawk.' (^2)
By the developer stating in the third version of events that the nest did not belong to the Red Goshawk, they have declared that no habitat critical to the survival of the species exists. (^3).
^1 Source: Distribution, status and habitat of the Red Goshawk
Erythrotriorchis radiatus in Queensland G. V. Czechura1, R. G. Hobson2 and D. A. Stewart3
https://absa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Cor-Vol-35-Pg3_10-Red-Goshawk.pdf
^2 Source: Chalumbin Wind Farm EPBC Act referral.
^3 Draft Public Environment Report 3rd Nov 2022
RED GOSHAWK
Photo credit: Doug Herrington
Birdwatching Tropical Australia
Magnificent Brood Frog (Pseudophryne covacevichae)
CURRENT STATUS: ENDANGERED
(IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: 2020.2 list)
*The species has an extremely limited known range. 97% of all known habitat is on unprotected land. (^1)
*This species has very specific breeding requirements. They breed in and around seepage areas in open eucalypt forests. [A seepage is a moist to wet area where water (usually groundwater) reaches the soil surface from an underground aquifer. In contrast, springs usually have a higher volume of water than seepages]. (^1)
*Regrowth forest uses more water than old growth and therefore has the potential to reduce seepages. This means that bulldozing the habitat, then replanting will render the habitat entirely unsuitable for the breeding of this species. (^1)
'This species was observed in six locations.. with two locations recording large groups of male frogs (15-20 individuals).' (^2)
As the total population is likely to be very small, all of the known habitat is considered to be critical for survival. (^1)
The development will result in the clearing of 120.5 ha (297.76 acres) of magnificent brood frog habitat. (1).
'Despite the sensitive design measures and the avoidance, minimisation and mitigation measures proposed, the Project is conservatively assessed as having a potential significant residual impact on the magnificent brood frog'. (^2)
I would urge everyone to read Ecologist Carly Starr's Bush Heritage Australia report on this species. (^3) The report, dated 29th March 2021 outlines the critical work required over the next 24 months to protect this species.
That the developer would proceed with this project, fully aware of the impact this will have, on the restricted habitat of the Magnificent Brood Frog is reprehensible.
To attempt to justify this devastating impacts of this development, 250k is being offered as 'offset' for research into the species. (^2). Yep, that's right, fund research while simultaneously contributing to the extinction of the species..
(^1) Draft PER 3rd Nov 2022
(^2) Chalumbin Wind Farm EPBC Act referral section 2.4
(^3) Source: Ecologist Carly Starr 'Most Magnificent Broodfrog you've never heard of' Report, Bush Heritage Australia. (2021)
https://www.bushheritage.org.au/blog/magnificent-broodfrog
MAGNIFICENT BROOD FROG
Photo credit: Michael Anthony
Masked Owl [Northern sub-species] (Tyto novaehollandiae Kimberli)
CURRENT STATUS: VULNERABLE
(EPBC Act & Nature Conservation Act)
*Requires old growth trees with large hollows for nesting.
The development will result in the clearance of 534.2 ha of nesting and foraging habitat and an additional 507 ha of foraging-only habitat = 1041.2ha (2572.86 acres) (^1)
(^1) Draft PER 3rd Nov 2022
MASKED OWL
Photo Credit: unknown photographer.
Spectacled Flying Fox
CURRENT STATUS: ENDANGERED
(EPBC Act & Nature Conservation Act)
The Spectacled Flying Fox is a Keystone Species. Keystone species play a critical role in defining their entire ecosystem. They disperse seeds when feeding and through their droppings. It is estimated that larger seeds may be dispersed over a range of 80km. The dispersal of seeds carried out by this species may be unique in terms of dispersal distance, deposition mode and quantity dispersed.
The Spectacled Flying Fox plays a role in the pollination of tropical rainforest and savanna plants/ Spectacled flying foxes regularly cross and feed in modified habitats means that they may have an important role in seed dispersal in isolated and/or small rainforest fragments. Foraging records suggest that the species feeds on fruits of 14 rainforest plants for which no other disperser is currently known. (^1)
Cafenec states: “Spectacled Flying Foxes are a very special part of Far North Queensland and are a key pollinator for our beautiful rainforests. They are currently under threat from loss of habitat, climate change and urban development. In 2019 they were listed as Endangered, however, the recent mass death in November 2018 were not considered in this listing. Experts tell us the numbers indicate Spectacled Flying Foxes should be listed as Critically Endangered. Despite the stress on the population of these important creatures, they continue to face on going and unnecessary threats from human activity, particularly development and ongoing dispersal attempts from the Cairns Regional Council.” (^3)
*In addition to land clearing, this species may be impacted by turbine strike and or barotrauma:
‘There is potential for the Project to have a significant residual impact on the spectacled flying-fox through turbine collision and/or barotrauma’. (^2)
[Barotrauma causes death in bats by rapid air-pressure reduction near turbine blades causing tissue and lung damage due to the expansion of air in the lungs that cannot be expelled]. (^4)
In the event this species is impacted by collision / turbine strike and or barotrauma, this is how the developer plans to do:
“If the Project does result in death to individual spectacled flying-foxes due to collision with a turbine during operation, offsets may be required. In accordance with the EPBC Act, these may take the form of payment into a fund to support research on the species”. (^2)
However this significant residual impact, likely to constitute a threat to the survival of the species is not adequately addressed in the Public Environment Report which states:
The Project will result in the clearing of 976 ha (2411.75 acres) of spectacled flying-fox foraging habitat (^2)
(^1) National Recovery Plan for The Spectacled Flying Fox https://www.dcceew.gov.au
(^2) Draft PER 3rd Nov 2022
(^3) https://cafnec.org.au/spectacled-flying-foxes/
(^4) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982208007513
SPECTACLED FLYING FOX
Photo Credit: unknown photographer.