Chapter 9 – Migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe

Abbot Point Cumulative Impact Assessment 

Part C – Impact assessment 

Chapter 9 – Migratory shorebirds and the 

Australian Painted Snipe

Contents 

ABBOT POINT CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT 

9! Migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe ........................................................... 9-1! 

9.1! Background to migratory shorebirds ......................................................................................... 9-1! 

9.2! Background to the Australian Painted Snipe ............................................................................ 9-3! 

9.3! Migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe at Abbot Point .................................... 9-5! 

9.4! Conservation objectives ......................................................................................................... 9-39! 

9.5! Potential impacts .................................................................................................................... 9-40! 

9.6! Avoidance, mitigation and management ................................................................................ 9-59! 

9.7! Monitoring programs ............................................................................................................... 9-63! 

9.8! Residual impacts and offsets .................................................................................................. 9-64! 

9.9! Interaction with climate change .............................................................................................. 9-67! 

9.10!Outcome ................................................................................................................................. 9-68! 

ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA & OPEN LINES I


9 Migratory shorebirds and the 

Australian Painted Snipe 

This chapter provides a detailed assessment of the presence and potential impacts of development on 

the thirty-six EPBC Act listed migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe (listed as a 

vulnerable threatened species). These species have been grouped together in the report to aid the 

impact assessment process as they have similar habitat requirements and will be subject to a common 

set of issues around potential impacts, mitigation, conservation objectives and offsets. 

9.1 BACKGROUND TO MIGRATORY SHOREBIRDS 

Thirty-six migratory shorebird species use the East Asian-Australasian flyway. Each year these birds 

breed in the northern hemisphere and migrate south to Australia and New Zealand where they feed 

intensively, building up energy reserves to fuel their northern migration and breeding (Clemens et al. 

2008). 

9.1.1 Assessing migratory shorebirds under the EPBC Act 

As discussed in Part B of this report, potential impacts for migratory shorebirds have been considered 

within the context of two key concepts commonly applied under the EPBC Act for migratory species 

(DEWHA 2009): 

• important habitat; and 

• an ecologically significant proportion of the population. 

Where neither of these two features of a migratory species is present, impacts are generally not 

considered an issue under the EPBC Act (DEWHA 2009a). 

In addition to this broad guidance, the Commonwealth Government has also issued a set of specific 

guidelines (DEWHA 2009a) for assessing the importance of habitat for migratory shorebird species in 

Australia. These guidelines (referred to as EPBC Act policy statement 3.21) outline a set of criteria for 

identifying ‘important habitat’. The associated background paper (DEWHA 2009b) that accompanies the 

policy statement provides detailed recommendations about survey requirements for migratory 

shorebirds. 

Under the guidelines (DEWHA 2009a), important habitat for migratory shorebirds (excluding Latham’s 

Snipe) includes sites that support: 

• at least 0.1 per cent of the flyway population of a single species; 

• at least 2,000 migratory shorebirds; or 

• at least 15 migratory shorebird species. 

ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA & OPEN LINES 9 - 1

Important habitat for Latham’s Snipe (DEWHA 2009a) includes sites that: 

• support at least 18 individuals of the species; and 


• are naturally occurring open freshwater wetland with vegetation cover nearby (for example, tussock 

grasslands, sedges, lignum or reeds within 100 m of the wetland). 

9.1.2 Migratory shorebird ecology 

The thirty-six EPBC listed migratory shorebird species depend upon breeding, staging, feeding and 

roosting sites along a migratory pathway which extends from Alaska and Siberia to Australia. This 

section describes the migratory pathway and the national and regional roles played by Australia. 

EAST ASIAN-AUSTRALASIAN FLYWAY 

The East Asian-Australasian (EAA) flyway extends from Siberia and Alaska through east and south-east 

Asia (most predominately China and Korea) to Australia and New Zealand. The EAA flyway contains at 

least 5 million migratory shorebirds (Gosbel et al. 2004). 

Migratory species using the EAA flyway undertake annual migrations of thousands of kilometres 

between their southern feeding areas and breeding areas in the northern hemisphere. Species have 

been recorded traveling over 10,000 km non-stop, with total return distances from northern breeding 

grounds to southern feeding areas exceeding 29,000 km (Knowler, 2008). 

Northward migration to the breeding grounds typically takes place from March to early June. The birds 

arrive for the Arctic breeding season and must breed and fledge offspring within a six to seven week 

window of favourable summer climatic conditions. The return migration to non-breeding / feeding areas 

occurs from July to October. Most migratory shorebird species have delayed maturity, and will skip their 

first northerly migration by staying in Australia. The young of some species will not return to breed until 

they are two or more years old. These immature birds may undertake partial migration from southern to 

northern areas of Australia. 

During migration birds move through staging areas. Staging habitat is defined as areas that meet 

shorebird feeding and roosting requirements during migration. Shorebirds exhibit strong site fidelity to 

preferred feeding and roosting areas and do not readily use alternative areas (Tudor, 2002). 

HABITAT IN AUSTRALIA 

Australia provides important feeding habitat for migratory shorebirds of the EAA flyway. 

The migratory shorebirds that regularly visit Australia have a wide variety of habitat requirements, 

spatial distributions and patterns of habitat use (Marchant and Higgins 1993, Marchant et al. 1976). 

Migratory shorebirds arrive in northern Australia beginning in August, and then disperse throughout the 

country. Migratory shorebird habitat in Australia provides: 

• Feeding areas with abundant food resources. Physical characteristics of feeding areas primarily 

consist of intertidal mudflats, sandy beaches, salt pans and rocky intertidal areas. The 

characteristics of high value feeding areas include large populations of invertebrates, low 

disturbance, and undegraded soils. Several species also readily feed in wet or moist substrates on 

coastal or inland freshwater wetlands. 



• Roosting areas where migratory shorebirds can sleep and preen during non-feeding times. 

Roosting areas in proximity to feeding areas reduce energetic costs and maintain positive energy 

flow. Physical characteristics of roosting areas include little or no vegetation on open ground that 

remains above water during high tides (Tudor, 2002). 

HABITAT ON THE NORTH-EAST QUEENSLAND COAST 

Over the austral winter Queensland supports the second highest population of migratory shorebirds in 

Australia and a greater number of species than any other state or territory (Gosbell et al. 2006). 

The north-east Queensland coast provides significant habitat for migratory shorebirds (Driscoll 1993). 

Noting that in terms of assessing habitat as significant the wetlands of north-east Queensland provide a 

diverse range of habitat values even in instances where the abundance of shorebirds recorded in them 

is low (Clemens et al. 2008). 

The diversity of Queensland habitat used by migratory shorebirds includes: 

• coastal habitats – coastal wetlands, estuaries, mudflats, rocky inlets, reefs, sandy beaches and 

mangroves; and 

• inland habitats – inland wetlands, floodplains and grassland area. 

Queensland has significant ephemeral wetland areas both on and near the coast and inland. Ephemeral 

wetland environments are characterised by short, infrequent, and unpredictable water availability, which 

determines if and when birds are present. 

The importance of ephemeral wetlands as shorebird habitat is due largely to the fact that species that 

utilise ephemeral wetlands have adapted to annual variation in water conditions, and are known for their 

flexible annual distribution patterns. These species exploit a large network of wetlands that extend over 

hundreds of kilometres, selecting each year from among the subset of sites that are sufficiently wet 

(Robinson and Oring 1996). Therefore, while one particular ephemeral wetland is likely not critical as 

habitat to any one species, a regional wetland network is critical. 

9.2 BACKGROUND TO THE AUSTRALIAN PAINTED SNIPE 

The Australian Painted Snipe (Rostratula australis) is a stocky wader around 220-250 mm in length with 

a long pinkish bill. The species is an Australian resident and is dependent on a variety of wetland 

habitats. It is listed as both a vulnerable threatened species and a migratory species under the 

EPBC Act. It should be noted that until recently it was considered to be a subspecies of the species 

Rostratula benghalensis that occurs in Africa and Asia. This is no longer the case and it is now 

considered to be a species in its own right (SEWPAC 2012c). 

It is important to note that the 2010 action plan for Australian Birds (Garnett et al. 2011) suggests that 

the Australian Painted Snipe should be endangered. This is based on evidence that it has a small 

population size (estimated at between 1,000 and 1,500) and that there has been population decline of 

over 30% over the last 26 years. 



9.2.1 Assessing the Australian Painted Snipe under the 

EPBC Act 

As discussed in Part B of this report, potential impacts to threatened species have been considered 

within the context of the following two key concepts commonly applied under the EPBC Act and defined 

in Matters of National Environmental Significance Significant impact guidelines 1.1 (DEWHA 2009): 

• important population of a species; and 

• habitat critical to the survival of a species or ecological community. 

9.2.2 Ecology of the Australian Painted Snipe 

HABITAT REQUIREMENTS 

The Australian Painted Snipe inhabits shallow, vegetated, temporary or infrequently filled wetlands, 

sometimes where there are trees, shrubs or samphire freshwater. The species will occasionally use 

brackish wetlands, saltmarsh, claypans and agricultural areas (Garnett et al. 2011). Preferred wetland 

habitats are characterised by emergent vegetation (including tussocks, grasses, sedges, rushes, reeds, 

canegrass and/or paperbarks) (Marchant and Higgins 1993). The species requires suitable wetland 

areas even in drought conditions (SEWPAC 2012c). 

DISTRIBUTION AND POPULATION 

The species mostly occurs across northern and eastern Australia as well as in south-western Australian 

probably as one population. Since 1997 it is estimated that the area of occupancy for the species has 

decreased by 50% (Garnett, et al. 2011). It should be noted that in calculating this estimate, there are a 

lack of extensive surveys in northern Australia, survey methodologies differ and the species has cryptic 

and dispersive habits. There is also evidence of partial migration from south-eastern wetlands to coastal 

central and northern Queensland in autumn and winter (Marchant and Higgins 1993). 

The most current (2011) population estimate for the species is between 1,000 and 1,500 and highly 

unlikely to exceed 2,500 mature individuals (Garnett et al. 2011). Over the past 26 years the rate of 

decline has been estimated at over 30%. Given the past and continuing loss and degradation of 

wetlands, especially shallow ephemeral wetlands, this rate of decline is predicted to continue. 

BREEDING, ECOLOGY AND BEHAVIOUR 

Records of the Australian Painted Snipe generally refer to single birds, though there have been 

sightings of small groups of 3-4 and flocks up to about 30 (Marchant and Higgins 1993). The Australian 

Painted Snipe is considered to occur in a single, contiguous breeding population (Garnett and Crowley 

2000). 

Nesting occurs amongst ground vegetation in or adjacent to wetlands (SEWPAC 2012c). The nest 

consists of a scrape in the ground, lined with grasses and leaves. Breeding is often in response to local 

conditions and generally occurs from September to December. 

This species forages nocturnally on mud-flats and in shallow water on worms, molluscs, insects, seeds 

and crustaceans. 



The Australian Painted Snipe is considered to be a secretive species which is often difficult to detect 

due to its cryptic behaviour and occurrence in dense vegetation (SEWPaC 2012c). 

9.3 MIGRATORY SHOREBIRDS AND THE AUSTRALIAN 

PAINTED SNIPE AT ABBOT POINT 

The Abbot Point project area provides important habitat for migratory shorebirds and the Australian 

Painted Snipe. The following section outlines the surveys that have been conducted, the habitat values 

within the vicinity of the project area, and the species that have been recorded. 

9.3.1 Field surveys 

A number of surveys have been undertaken at Abbot Point to help understand the value of the area to 

avian species including migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe. Table 9-1 lists these 

studies, explains their extent and when they took place. While the surveys differ in terms of 

methodology and purpose they all provide useful information for the potential presence of these species 

at Abbot Point. 

Table 9-1: Relevant bird surveys at Abbot Point 

Study Bird survey timing and effort 

Ecoserve/LAMR. (2005) Abbot 

Point and Caley Valley Wetlands 

– Dry Season Flora and Fauna 

Survey. Draft report prepared for 

Steve Thorne, NCA Project 

EcoServe (2007). Abbot Point 

and Caley Valley Wetlands 2007. 

Wet Season Flora and Fauna 

Surveys. Unpublished report for 

Ports Corporation of Queensland. 

GHD (2009a) Terrestrial and 

Aquatic Ecological Assessment 

for NQBP Abbot Point Multi Cargo 

Facility (MCF) Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

Dry season: October 26 to November 3, 2004 

Preliminary investigations and survey site establishment conducted on 25 

and 26 October prior to the 10 day field survey. 

Timed area searches of 20 minutes each. There were two early morning and 

one late afternoon survey conducted during a five day survey period for each 

survey site. 

Call playback surveys for cryptic species for approximately 3 to 5 minutes per 

species. 

Wet season: March 28 to April 4, 2007 

Counts of waterbird on the wetland. Surveys undertaken at point locations 

over a three day period. 

Call playback surveys for cryptic species. Calls broadcast for 3 to 5 minutes 

with 3 minute breaks of silence. 

Dry season: October 20 to November 1, 2008 

Two 30-minute bird censuses within each of six 200 x 100 m (2 ha) strip 

transects at the dry wetland. 

Wet season: March 22 to April 4, 2009 

A survey of birds within the Caley Valley Wetland conducted on foot or from 

vantage points around the perimeter of the wetland, with the wetland divided 

into three (northern, central and southern) sectors and representative 

transects searched. 


Study Bird survey timing and effort 

GHD (2009b) Terrestrial Ecology, 

Abbot Point Coal Terminal X110 

Expansion: Infrastructure 

Development Project Draft 

Voluntary Environmental 

Assessment. 

Unidel (2011) Abbot Point Coal 

Terminal Facilities Terrestrial 

Ecology Assessment for Waratah 

Coal Galilee Coal Project 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

GHD (2011) Caley Valley 

Wetland Freshwater Aquatic Flora 

and Fauna Assessment for Alpha 

Coal Project (Rail) Supplementary 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

Biodiversity Assessment and 

Management Pty Ltd 2012 

(BAAM) Caley Valley Wetland, 

Port of Abbot Point. Cumulative 

Impact Assessment Migratory 

Shorebirds and Waterbird 

Surveys 

Both seasons 


Targeted surveys for Black-throated Finch Poephila cincta cincta and Beach 

Stone-Curlew Esacus neglectus. 

Dry season: November 10 – 11, 2008 Wet season: April 4, 2009 

Surveys at defined sampling sites within each representative RE, as well as 

random meanders within the broader direct footprint study area, recording 

species and number of individuals sighted. 

Targeted search for threatened species likely to be recorded within each 

season. 

Three days in November 2009 

An avifauna survey of the Abbot Point State Development Area (APSDA) 

involving both ground-based and aerial surveys. The ground-based survey 

involved driving and walking sections of wetland containing water and 

recording species composition, abundance and behaviour. The aerial survey 

was conducted from a helicopter for one hour and involved searching for and 

recording the location of wetlands containing water and/or waterbird 

aggregations; species composition and abundance were recorded whenever 

waterbird aggregations were encountered. 

23 to 25 February 2011 

Opportunistic observations during survey of rail loop study area recording 

bird species present within and immediately adjoining the proposed rail loop 

footprint area. 

Wet Season 21 to 24 February and 5 to 10 March 2012 

Assessment of population and habitat importance in relation to the total 

abundance of waterbirds and shorebird species within the Caley Valley 

Wetland system. 

Baseline survey approach (including estimation and extrapolation) and 

desktop review of previous studies. 

Dry Season 26 to 29 June 2012 

Assessment of population and habitat importance in relation to the total 

abundance of waterbirds and shorebird species within the Caley Valley 

Wetland system. 

Baseline survey approach (including estimation and extrapolation) and 

desktop review of previous studies. 

In addition to these surveys, Birdlife Australia (previously Birds Australia) gathers data from sites 

throughout Australia as part of its Shorebird 2020 project. The Shorebird 2020 project involves the 

coordination of national shorebird population monitoring. Counts focusing on up to 45 shorebird species 

are conducted annually. The purpose of the shorebird 2020 project is to detect national population 

trends with a view to analysing the causes of any change. Birdlife Australia has records of four 



migratory shorebird species in the project area. Notably one of these four, the Curlew Sandpiper 

(Calidris ferruginea) was not previously observed in the study area. 

The Queensland Wader Study Group (QWSG) conducts monthly surveys at many sites along the 

Queensland coastline and coordinates Shorebird 2020 activities within Queensland. It also conducts 

periodic intensive field surveys of specific areas within Queensland and has records of shorebirds in the 

immediate neighbourhood of the Caley Valley Wetland but has not surveyed within the wetland itself. 

Birdlife Australia also established the Australian Painted Snipe Project in 2001 to address population 

declines identified for the species across Australia. The project found that movements of the Australian 

Painted Snipe are poorly understood and that there are a number of knowledge gaps in relation to this 

species. The species is possibly dispersive in response to the flooding and drying out of wetlands, and 

birds are capable of travelling great distances. 

BAAM SURVEYS (2012) 

As outlined in Table 9-1, migratory shorebird and Australian Painted Snipe surveys were undertaken by 

BAAM in 2012. These surveys were commissioned to help inform this CIA. The key aim of these 

surveys was to determine whether the Caley Valley Wetland provides important habitat for EPBC listed 

migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe. A summary of these surveys is provided here 

and the full report (BAAM 2012) is provide as an attachment to this report. 

The BAAM (2012) survey approach considered (in particular) the guidelines in EPBC policy statement 

3.21 (DEWHA 2009a, b) in terms of assessing population and habitat importance for migratory 

shorebirds. The baseline survey approach was to obtain an estimate, based on count data and 

extrapolation to any unsurveyed areas, of the total population size of each species of migratory 

shorebird observed in the Caley Valley Wetland system. Survey effort concentrated on the main 

wetland. The intertidal (estuary and coastal) surveys were constrained by time, access, weather and the 

non-accessibility of Dingo Beach due to Indigenous cultural heritage values and sensitivities. 

It is important to note that the work by BAAM also provided the opportunity to survey for the Australian 

Painted Snipe and the survey methodologies used for migratory shorebirds are appropriate for that 

species. 

The BAAM study area comprised the Caley Valley Wetland and adjoining coastal habitats shown in 

Figure 9-1. The surveys comprised two wet season and one dry season surveys. 

Note that due to constraints on the field surveys, caused by the sheer size of the project area, access, 

and time constraints, the BAAM survey methodology includes a number of assumptions: 

• It was necessary to extrapolate the total population sizes for the main wetland area to unsurveyed 

areas. This was done according to standard industry practice and involved extrapolating the count 

results of surveyed sectors to unsurveyed areas using a survey sector most similar in position and 

habitat characteristics to the unsurveyed area. 

• Extrapolation was possible for only four species. These four species were restricted to the 

perimeter fringes of the wetland basin. 

• It was also necessary to provide estimates for some species. Estimates account for factors such as 

bird movements during survey periods, the cryptic nature of some species and flushing distances. 

Estimation was conducted by BAAM in accordance with recognised industry practice. 


Wet season surveys 

Two wet season field surveys were conducted: 


• four full days of surveying, from 21 to 24 February 2012, on foot using binoculars and a highpowered 

telescope mounted on a tripod; and 

• five full days from 5 to 10 March 2012 using the same method as for February with one of the days 

spent surveying interior sedge marshes from kayaks. 

With the exception of two short rain events the weather was relatively consistent through both survey 

periods with temperatures ranging from 22°C to 33°C and partly cloudy. 

Locations of the survey tracks, transects and points for each of the two surveys are shown in Figure 9-2 

and Figure 9-3 for the February and March 2012 survey periods respectively. 

The survey approach comprised three types of survey area: 

• a complete survey of all open water areas; 

• sedge marsh fringing the outer wetland perimeter and island shores; and 

• interior closed sedge marsh. 

Dry season survey 

BAAM conducted a four day dry season survey from 26 to 29 June 2012. This survey comprised a 4 full 

day survey and serves as an addendum to the BAAM 2012 technical report. The dry season survey 

adopts the same methodology for migratory shorebirds as the wet season surveys. 

The focus of the dry season survey was the main wetland basin. The open pan and coastal zones, 

including the intertidal zone, were not surveyed. 

The weather during the dry season survey was fine and mild, with gentle winds and no rainfall. 

Locations of the survey tracks, transects and points for the dry season survey are shown in Figure 9-4. 



Figure 9-1: Caley Valley Wetland study area 


Figure 9-2: BAAM February survey locations 



Figure 9-3: BAAM March survey locations 



Figure 9-4: BAAM June survey locations 




9.3.2 Habitat for migratory shorebirds and the Australian 

Painted Snipe habitat at Abbot Point 

The vicinity of the Abbot Point project area provides an extensive and diverse habitat mosaic for 

migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe. The area includes the Caley Valley Wetland as 

well as estuarine, intertidal and coastal areas (beach, shore and dune areas). This section provides a 

description of the areas that make up this habitat mosaic. 

OVERVIEW 

The Caley Valley Wetland is located to the south west of the existing Abbot Point coal terminal and to 

the north of the Don River Basin (DERM 2010). The wetland covers an area of approximately 5,154 ha. 

It has gently sloping margins, separated from the Coral Sea on two sides by a beach dune barrier 

system to the north and east and on the western side by estuarine systems. 

The catchment area of the wetland system is approximately 830 km 2 (including Euri and Splitters Creek 

catchments) and includes portions and the slopes of Mounts Little and Roundback immediately to the 

south. Main, Mt Stuart, Splitters, Spring, and Table Top Creeks drain into Curlewis Bay to the north, 

while Six Mile, Goodbye and Saltwater creeks drain into the impounded wetland area (DEWHA, 2008). 

Excess treated surface water from the existing Abbot Point Coal Terminal’s stormwater treatment ponds 

enters the wetland from the north, runoff from the elevated dunes and ridges within the Abbot Point Coal 

Terminal site enter the wetland from the east. 

Saltwater Creek, south east of the main body of the wetland, provides the connection between the 

wetland and Euri Creek. During the dry season, tidal movements dominate the system and saline water 

enters the wetland from Curlewis Bay (DEWHA, 2008). 

The wetland is listed under the Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia (DIWA) as a palustrine 

system (modified from an original brackish wetland). 

The Caley Valley Wetland consists of both subtidal and intertidal marine and estuarine wetlands, 

including one large fresh and brackish water wetland contained within a partially artificial impoundment 

(Blackman et al. 1992). Freshwater impoundment has been created by four artificial bund walls which 

were constructed in 1956 to enhance duck shooting opportunities (Peter Hollingsworth and Associates 

1979 and 1981). Abundance and diversity of wetland birds began increasing shortly after the bund walls 

were constructed (Lavery 1964). Figure 9-1 shows the location of the bund walls and the causeway. 

Tidal flushing of the wetland is partly constrained by the western bund and causeway and totally 

constrained by the two eastern bunds that restrict inflows from Euri Creek. The western bund partially 

isolates the site from tidal influences. It has also resulted in localised mangrove die-back, due primarily 

to root anoxia which is caused by excessive ponding of water. Tidal flows have been observed 

occurring both around and overtopping the western bund (WBM, 2006) has been observed allowing 

tidal flows through. Similarly the causeway is overtopped during spring tide events as well as having a 

culvert located at the southern end that allows water exchange between the two main areas of the 

wetland (GHD 2009a). 

The wet and dry seasons greatly influence the ecology of the wetland. Increased rainfall and flow of 

water from the catchment during the wet season result in the filling of the eastern wetland area and the 

return of substantial vegetation such as reeds, sedges and rushes (MCF EIS 2010). In turn, this 

provides foraging and nesting habitats and refuge for a wide range of birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish 



and aquatic invertebrates. During the wet season there tends to be a reversible movement of fresh and 

brackish waters westwards from the wetland and into Curlewis Bay. 

During the dry season, however, tidal movements tend to dominate the system (GHD 2009). With very 

limited freshwater inflow, much of the wetland dries and loses vegetative cover. Under such dry 

conditions, the wetted expanse of the wetlands can contract to the area known as Lake Caley, in the 

south eastern part of the wetland. Lake Caley provides one of the only semi-permanent non-tidal 

waterbodies in the area. 

WETLAND VARIABILITY OVER TIME 

A critical point to understand about the wetland, is that it is a highly dynamic and seasonal system. The 

water levels can vary substantially both between years and within the same year. 

Abbot Point is classified as tropical savannah. Aside from it being subject to cyclones, it is also subject 

to significant rainfall variability. Historical records range from approximately 2,015 mm in 1950 to 

215 mm in 1915 (RGSQ, 2012). In periods of drought, food resources for migratory shorebirds and the 

Australian Painted Snipe are likely to be depleted in the wetland and the birds would need to rely on 

alternative wetland habitats. 

Discussions with NQBP staff provided some anecdotal history of the wetland over the last twelve years. 

During that time, the wetland has undergone long periods of drought, regular seasonal drying, and more 

recently higher water levels. Key periods include: 

• 2000 to 2007: The area was mostly in drought. During this time the wetland held some water in 

summer (possibly over a three month period) and was almost entirely dry for nine months of the 

year. 

• 2008 to 2011: Conditions in the wetland were at higher water levels reflecting greater rainfall in the 

region with the wetland retaining water for approximately nine months of the year. 

• 2012: Extremely good conditions in the wetland where water levels are still very high at the time of 

writing this report, which is normally when the wetland has very limited water remaining. 

To illustrate the variability of the wetland over time, three aerial images are provided that show the area 

of the wetland closest to the existing T1 rail loop (the wetland area was mapped as closed marsh 

habitat by BAAM in summer of 2012). The images are for illustrative purposes only and do not attempt 

to provide coverage across the whole of the wetland or at regularly intervals over the last decade. The 

images are: 

• 9 th August 2001 (Figure 9-5). 

• 6 th January 2005 (Figure 9-6). 

• 15 th February 2012 (Figure 9-7). 

It can be seen that in 2001 and 2005 (at the time the photos were taken) the wetland was almost 

entirely dry in those locations. This compares to 2012, where water levels were high. 

It is likely that the state of the wetland over the most recent twelve months represents optimal condition 

in terms of water levels and consequently potential habitat for shorebirds and the Australian Painted 

Snipe. This is reflected in the high numbers of birds recorded in the BAAM (2012) surveys (see 

Section 9.3.3). 



Figure 9-5: Caley Valley Wetland 9 th August 2001 



Figure 9-6: Caley Valley Wetland 6 th January 2005 



Figure 9-7: Caley Valley Wetland 15 th February 2012 

CURRENT MOSAIC OF WETLAND HABITATS 

The wetland comprises a diversity of complex and dynamic habitat types. The diversity of habitat is due 

in large part to hydrological characteristics unique to the wetland and caused by the proximity of its 

catchment and tidal influences and the location of the bunds and causeway (refer to Figure 9-1). BAAM 

(2012) mapped three distinct wetland types or functional zones: 

• coastal water and estuarine (intertidal) zone (approximately 1,622 ha); 

• hypersaline or open pan zone (approximately 469 ha); and 

• wetland basin zone, comprising the: 

o open marsh zone (approximately 507 ha); and 

o closed marsh zone (approximately 1,325 ha). 

The total area of the wetland zones mapped by BAAM was 3,923 ha. This is smaller than the reported 

area of the wetland of 5,154 ha. The areas mapped by BAAM are used in the analysis in this chapter. 

The wetland zones are characterised by a mosaic of flora and invertebrate habitats (Veary et al. 2007). 

Figure 9-8 and Figure 9-9 illustrate the differences in the (predominately) ephemeral flora between the 

wet and dry seasons (noting the photos were taken at identical locations). 

The wetland’s functional zones, are described below according to their hydrological and biological 

characteristics and their habitat value for migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe. 



Figure 9-8: Brackish sedgeland community at Caley Valley Wetland - dry season (BAAM 2012) 

Figure 9-9: Brackish sedgeland community at Caley Valley Wetland - wet season (BAAM 2012) 


Coastal water and estuarine (intertidal) zones 


The wetland contains a small section of open coast between Mt Stuart and Branch Creek, located on 

the western side of the wetland. This zone contains coastal open waters, sandy beaches and spits, and 

coastal dune vegetation communities. 

The tidal creeks located on the western side of the wetlands contain large areas of estuarine vegetation. 

A mosaic of mangrove forests, saltmarsh, saltpan, and Casuarina dominated wetlands occur within this 

zone. The spatial distribution and structure of these vegetation communities is controlled by tidal 

inundation patterns and freshwater inputs. 

The BAAM 2012 February survey found two species of migratory shorebird (the Whimbrel and the 

Eastern Curlew) using the coastal water zones during both high and low tides (marked as C3 & C4 in 

Figure 9-2). Although both species were also found on the wetland basin zone their numbers were 

significantly higher around the intertidal (coastal and estuarine) area. 

The presence of Whimbrel and Eastern Curlew populations on the intertidal zone is indicative of the 

invertebrate populations also supported by the coastal and estuarine zones. The Whimbrel and Eastern 

Curlew are mainly carnivorous, feeding on a range of invertebrates including worms, molluscs and 

crustaceans found in this zone. 

Hypersaline or open pan zone 

The area between the western bund and the causeway contains extensive saltpans and ponded 

hypersaline waters. The impounded hypersaline waters upslope of the western bund have high salinity 

levels and areas of anoxic sediment. The saltpan areas are typically dry but contain sparse coverage of 

salt tolerant saltmarsh species. 

The habitat value of the open pan zone to migratory shorebirds is much lower during the dry season. 

Inundation by flood waters in the wet season transforms the zone making it more productive and 

brackish in character. This allows for the temporary development of saltmarsh communities. As a result 

of these changes the open pan zone is able to support a wider range of bird species, including some 

species more typical of either freshwater or saltwater habitats. 

The BAAM wet season survey found the open-pan zone supported up to 2,850 waterbirds of which 

1,276 were migratory shorebirds. The largest numbers, including up to 1,088 Red-necked Stint and up 

to 130 Sharp-tailed Sandpiper, were found in the southern area of the open pan zone most exposed to 

tidal inflows. 

The presence of the Red-necked Stint and Sharp-tailed Sandpiper is indicative of the value of the wet 

season open pan zone as a source of food. These two species often feed together (Higgins & Davies 

1996) with both having similar diets. Both species are predominately carnivorous, feeding on worms, 

molluscs crustaceans and insects and, in the open pan zone, gleaning from saltmarsh. The Red-necked 

Stint will also occasionally feed on seeds (Driscoll pers. com 2012). 

Wetland basin zone 

This zone is located east of the causeway and contains palustrine (marsh) and lacustrine (lake) areas 

that are of near freshwater character (varying depending on rainfall and salinity conditions). The 

palustrine area represents the largest wetland type in the Caley Valley Wetland. The vegetation in this 

area is made up of discrete sedge patches almost entirely consisting of one species, mangrove 

clubrush (Schoenoplectus litoralis). 



The wetland basin zone comprises two principal habitats: an open marsh and a closed marsh habitat. 

Both support similar water bird species in terms of assemblage and abundance despite having different 

proportions of open water present. There is substantial movement of birds between the two habitat 

types. 

Open marsh zone 

This is an area of predominantly open water with relatively narrow fringing sedge marsh located within 

the western section of the main wetland basin, immediately east of the causeway. 

Most of the western shoreline of the open marsh lacks fringing sedge and as a result supports smaller 

numbers of shorebird species (BAAM 2012). However, the more open western shoreline (particularly 

near the causeway) supports large numbers of ducks that use the area for both resting and foraging 

(BAAM 2012). 

Illustrative of the movement of migratory shorebirds between the closed and open marshes is the fact 

that BAAM survey found the Sharp-tailed Sandpiper in almost identical numbers in each area. 

Closed marsh zone 

This is an area of predominantly sedge marsh with patches of open water channels, including Lake 

Caley within the eastern section of the main wetland basin. Lake Caley is an area of deeper, open water 

surrounded by sedge marsh within the centre of the main wetland basin, as shown in Figure 9-1. 

The closed marsh supports a particularly large number of waterbirds. Similarly the BAAM survey found 

Latham’s Snipe to move freely between the open and closed marshes. The closed marsh area was also 

found to be important for the Australian Painted Snipe. 

The BAAM 2012 dry season survey found the Australian Painted Snipe present in family groups. One of 

these groups included two juvenile birds that were noticeably smaller than the attendant adult, 

suggesting recent breeding, most likely on the wetland itself. 

9.3.3 Records of migratory shorebirds and the Australian 

Painted snipe at Abbot Point 

MIGRATORY SHOREBIRDS 

Through the various field surveys (listed in Table 9-1) including the Birdlife Australia and 2012 BAAM 

surveys, a total of 15 migratory shorebird species have been found at the project site. Each of these 

species and the survey during which they were recorded is outlined in Table 9-2. 

As the table shows, the BAAM surveys record a larger number of species than other surveys. This is 

most likely due to the 2012 survey periods providing particularly favourable conditions, in terms of food 

resources, for migratory shorebirds. 

The cumulative results of the surveys indicate the diversity of migratory shorebird species using the 

wetland. The number of species found at the wetland represents almost half the total number of 

migratory shorebirds listed under the EPBC Act. 

It is significant that over half the species found at Abbot Point were recorded in at least three of the four 

studies listed in Table 9-2. This is perhaps partly because migratory shorebirds exhibit strong site fidelity 



and will return to the same site year after year (Clemens et al. 2008) but may also be indicative of the 

quality and diversity of local habitat. 

Table 9-2: Migratory shorebirds at Abbot Point (taken from BAAM 2012) 

Migratory shorebird 

species 

Common name Previous 

Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper X 

Birdlife 

Australia 

BAAM 

Feb 2012 

BAAM 

Mar 2012 

Calidris acuminata Sharp-tailed Sandpiper X X X X 

Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper X 

Calidris ruficollis Red-necked Stint X X X X X 

Charadrius 

leschenaultii 

Greater Sandplover X 

Charadrius veredus Oriental Plover X 

Gallinago hardwickii Latham's Snipe X X X 

Limosa limosa Black-tailed Godwit X X 

Numenius 

madagascariensis 

Eastern Curlew X X X 

Numenius minitus Little Curlew X 

Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel X X X 

Pluvialis fulva Pacific Golden Plover X X 

Tringa incana Wandering Tattler X X X X 

Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank X X X X 

Tringa stagnatilis Marsh Sandpiper X X X 

BAAM 

Jun 2012 

Table 9-3 lists the total counts and estimates for each migratory species found in the main Caley Valley 

Wetland during the 2012 February and March BAAM survey. The table also provides an estimate of 

0.1% of the population of each species and the actual percentage of the population recorded for each 

species. 

Table 9-3: Total counts, population estimates and % flyway population for main wetland (taken from BAAM 

2012) 


species 

Common name 

Feb 

count 

Feb est 

Mar 

count 

Mar est 

Calidris acuminata Sharp-tailed Sandpiper 781 1199 351 377 160 0.75 

Calidris ruficollis Red-necked Stint 389 389 1224 1224 325 0.38 

Charadrius 

leschenaultii 

0.1% 

level 

% pop 

Greater Sandplover 1 1 110


species 

Common name 


Feb 

count 

Feb est 

Mar 

count 

Mar est 

0.1% 

level 

% pop 

Limosa limosa Black-tailed Godwit 1 1 160


The February component of the wet season survey recorded three individuals and the dry season 

recorded 24. This latter record was estimated to represent a total of 35 birds after extrapolation to 

unsurveyed areas. This is unusual in its size and represents approximately 2.3% of the total population 

of the species. Given that the species is commonly only found in small numbers, the survey results 

suggest that the Caley Valley Wetland (and the habitat mosaic it provides) supports an important 

population of the Australian Painted Snipe. 

9.3.4 Key species 

As described above, the Caley Valley Wetland meets the definition of important habitat for migratory 

shorebirds based on the number of individuals of three species observed during the 2012 surveys. 

These include: 

• Latham’s Snipe; 

• Sharp-tailed Sandpiper; and 

• Red-necked Stint. 

In addition, it is considered that Caley Valley Wetland supports an important population of the Australian 

Painted Snipe. 

The value of the area to each of these four key species is discussed below. 

LATHAM’S SNIPE 

Latham's Snipe is a medium sized wader and the largest snipe in Australia, weighing up to 230 g 

(SEWPaC 2012ac). 

Australian Distribution 

Latham's Snipe occur in temperate and tropical regions of Australia (Driscoll 1993). They occur in a 

single, dispersed non-breeding population (Garnett & Crowley 2000). 

The entire global population of Latham's Snipe is thought to migrate to Australia for the austral summer. 

Latham's Snipe arrives in northern Australia from July to November (Frith et al. 1977; Higgins & Davies 

1996). From there they move slowly southward, passing along the coastline and through regions near 

the coast and mostly overwinter in central eastern and south eastern Australia. In Queensland, birds are 

most common as passage migrants from Cape York Peninsula along the eastern coast and tablelands 

(Frith et al. 1977; Storr 1984). They tend to start their northward migration early and are known to spend 

significant time in coastal Queensland after the onset of the wet season, which is thought to be an 

adaptation to exploit northern wetlands once wetlands in southern Australia have dried out over summer 

(Lane and Forest 1984). 

Latham's Snipe are highly mobile and move readily between sites as conditions change. As a result 

local populations can exhibit rapid and significant fluctuations in size (Naarding 1985, 1986). 


Habitat 


In Australia, Latham's Snipe occur in permanent and ephemeral wetlands (Chapman 1969; Naarding 

1981). They usually inhabit open, freshwater wetlands with low, dense vegetation. However, they can 

also occur in habitats with saline or brackish water, in modified or artificial habitats, and in habitats 

located close to humans or human activity (Frith et al. 1977; Naarding 1983). These habitats are most 

commonly used when the birds are on migration (Frith et al. 1977). 

Latham's Snipe usually occurs singly or in small, loose groups of less than a dozen birds (Driscoll 1993; 

Higgins & Davies 1996; Naarding 1983). 

Feeding habitat and behaviour 

Latham's Snipe is an omnivorous species that feeds on seeds and other plant material and on 

invertebrates including insects (mainly flies and beetles), earthworms and spiders and occasionally 

molluscs, isopods and centipedes (Frith et al. 1977; Todd 2000). 

The foraging habitats of Latham's Snipe are characterised by areas of mud (either exposed or beneath 

a very shallow covering of water) and some form of cover (e.g. low, dense vegetation) (Frith et al. 1977; 

Todd 2000). 

The species is sensitive to disturbance (Driscoll pers. comm 2012). Individuals are shy and wary. If they 

are disturbed during the day they will initially freeze and then burst from cover, zig-zagging off with a 

very fast flight, with a 'crek' call, before dropping to cover again. This is often the first indication that they 

are present, as when still they are usually well camouflaged. 

Roosting habitat 

The species roost on the ground near (or sometimes in) their foraging areas, usually in sites that 

provide some degree of shelter, e.g. beside or under clumps of vegetation, among dense tea-tree, in 

forests, in drainage ditches or plough marks, among boulders, or in shallow water if cover is unavailable 

(Frith et al. 1977; Naarding 1982, 1983). 

Latham’s Snipe at the project site 

There are 36 records of Latham’s Snipe from the BAAM wet season surveys. Twenty seven birds were 

sighted on the first field trip. The estimated number of individuals was over double this at 63 birds. This 

raised estimate is commensurate with standard surveying practice for Latham’s Snipe and is considered 

necessary to account for the difficulties involved with surveying this species given their cryptic 

appearance and behaviour. 

Similar to the Sharp-tailed Sandpiper, numbers of Latham’s Snipe at Abbot Point decreased from 

February to March as its preferred foraging habitat flooded during this time. 

The mosaic of habitat types at Caley valley wetland is conducive to Latham’s Snipe both in terms of it’s 

foraging and roosting preferences but also its cryptic nature. The sensitivity of the species makes the 

closed marsh area of the wetland important because the fringing sedges allow the birds to move and 

forage under cover. The species avoids foraging in open areas. 

Figure 9-10 and Figure 9-11 show the locations of Latham’s Snipe at the project site and confirms that 

while the species will move between the open and closed marsh zones, foraging in the areas of mud in 

each zone, the common element in both zones is the level of cover, in both cases low dense vegetation. 


SHARP-TAILED SANDPIPER 


The Sharp-tailed Sandpiper is a small to medium sized wader. It is approximately 17–22 cm long and 

weighs approximately 65 g (SEWPaC 2012aa). 

Australian distribution 

Over 90% of the global Sharp-tailed Sandpiper population spends the non-breeding season in Australia. 

Small numbers arrive in northern Australia during mid-August, with large numbers in early September. 

Small numbers pass through the Torres Strait, and can occur on the coast of the Gulf of Carpentaria in 

large numbers between September to November. After arriving in Australia, most birds move slowly 

south across the continent to south-east Australia. 

The distribution of Sharp-tailed Sandpipers in Australia changes from year to year and depends in part 

on the availability of ephemeral inland wetlands. 

In Queensland, they are recorded in most regions, being widespread along much of the coast but in 

highest numbers on southward migration (QWSG records). They are very sparsely scattered inland, 

particularly in central and south-western regions (Higgins & Davies 1996). 

Habitat 

In Australasia, the Sharp-tailed Sandpiper prefers muddy edges of shallow fresh, brackish or saline 

wetlands, with inundated or emergent sedges, grass, saltmarsh or other low vegetation. Sometimes 

they occur on rocky shores and rarely on exposed reefs (Higgins & Davies 1996). 


The Sharp-tailed Sandpiper is one of the most common migratory shorebird species in eastern Australia 

(Smith 1991) and has been observed in large flocks of >1, 000 birds. 

Sharp-tailed Sandpipers are opportunistic feeders. They forage at the edge of the water of wetlands or 

intertidal mudflats, either on bare wet mud or sand, or in shallow water. They also forage among 

inundated vegetation of mangroves, saltmarsh, grass or sedges. They eat seeds, worms, molluscs, 

crustaceans and insects (Higgins & Davies 1996). Sharp-tailed Sandpiper have been observed foraging 

in large numbers with smaller proportions resting and preening. 


Roosting occurs at the edges of wetlands, on wet open mud or sand, in shallow water, or in short 

sparse vegetation, such as grass or saltmarsh. Occasionally, they roost on sandy beaches, stony 

shores or on rocks in water (Higgins & Davies 1996). They have also been recorded roosting in 

mangroves (Minton & Whitelaw 2000). 

An additional benefit arising for Sharp-tailed Sandpipers feeding in saltmarsh areas throughout the day 

is that they can use saltmarsh as night roosting habitat. Sharp-tailed Sandpipers need to feed almost 

continuously throughout the tidal cycle and often make extensive use of higher flats (Goss Custard and 

Moser 1988) or supratidal artificial wetlands (Masero et al. 2000; Masero and Perez-Hurtado 2001; 

Masero 2003) during high tides. By feeding in saltmarsh throughout the day, Sharp-tailed Sandpipers 

are able to limit any extra energy that would be expended travelling to and from a separate roost site. 



The roosting and foraging opportunities at Caley Valley Wetland, both individually and due to their 

proximity to each other provide ideal habitat for Sharp-tailed Sandpipers. 

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper at the project site 

The BAAM survey found the Sharp-tailed Sandpiper in significant numbers at the project site. This is the 

case even given the fact that between the February and March survey periods the population more than 

halved (see Table 9-3). This was possibly related to the large amount of rain that fell between surveys 

(151 mm). The Sharp-tailed Sandpiper forages in shallow water across wetland fringes and much of this 

foraging habitat disappeared as a result of the substantial post rain rise in water level. Notably the 

species was found in almost equal numbers in the open and closed marsh zones. 

Conversely the numbers of Sharp-tailed Sandpiper recorded in March in the open pan zone increased 

as the raised water level improved rather than detracted from foraging habitat in this area. 

The habitat mosaic that makes up Caley Valley Wetland is conducive to the foraging and roosting 

behaviours of the Sharp-tailed Sandpiper. The species feed opportunistically on the different habitat 

types, such as intertidal mudflats on bare wet mud or sand, and in shallow water (all provided by the 

wetland). 

The June 2012 BAAM survey found 1 (with an estimate of 2) Sharp-tailed Sandpiper on the western 

edge of the open marsh. That is, there was little evidence of a local population of young birds that had 

not migrated to breed in the northern hemisphere. Typically in Queensland, Sharp-tailed Sandpiper 

numbers are very low at this time of year (QWSG records). 

Figure 9-12, Figure 9-13 and Figure 9-14 show the locations and numbers of Sharp-tailed Sandpiper 

found in the project area for both the wet and dry season surveys. 

RED-NECKED STINT 

The Red-necked Stint is the smallest shorebird in Australia. It has a wing-span of approximately 29 to 

33 cm and an average body weight of 25 g (Geering et al. 2007). 

The species breeds during June on the tundra in Siberia and west Alaska (del Hoyo et al. 1996) before 

migrating to Australia for the austral summer. Over 80% of the global population reside in Australia 

during the non-breeding season. 

Australian distribution 

The Red-necked Stint is distributed along most of the Australian coastline with large densities on the 

Victorian and Tasmanian coasts. It has been recorded in all coastal regions, and found inland in all 

states when conditions are suitable (Higgins & Davies 1996). 

Habitat 

The coastal locations at which the species is found include sheltered inlets, bays, lagoons and estuaries 

with intertidal mudflats. Occasionally they are found on protected sandy or coralline shores. They have 

been recorded in saltmarsh, and ephemeral or permanent wetlands near the coast (Higgins & Davies 

1996). 




The Red-necked Stint forages on intertidal and near-coastal wetlands. It uses its bill to jab and probe 

into the soft mud for small invertebrates. It also gleans from plants in saltmarsh and water (Higgins & 

Davies 1996). The species prefers the bare wet mud or very shallow water of mud or sandflats. 

The Red-necked Stint forages on plant seeds (such as from Ruppia spp. and Polygonum spp.) and on a 

range of marine worms, molluscs, snails and slugs, shrimps, spiders, beetles, flies and ants. 

It is a highly gregarious species (Higgins & Davies 1996) often found feeding in dense flocks that spread 

out as the tide recedes. They regularly feed with other species, especially Sharp-tailed Sandpipers 

(Calidris acuminata) and Curlew Sandpipers (Calidris ferruginea). 

The Red-necked Stint is known to be very versatile and highly tolerant of disturbance (Driscoll pers. 

comm 2012). 


The Red-necked Stint roosts on sheltered beaches, spits, banks or islets, of sand, mud, coral or shingle, 

sometimes in saltmarsh or other vegetation. They occasionally roost on exposed reefs or shoals 

(Higgins & Davies 1996). Large numbers sometimes roost on ocean beaches, though it is probably not 

a preferred habitat and use of this habitat may increase when high numbers of birds are present 

(SEWPaC 2012ab). 

The Red-necked Stint roosting behaviour is linked to its foraging patterns. As the incoming tide makes 

mudflat feeding unfeasible birds will roost in the same area. Feeding can then recommence on the ebb 

tide (SEWPaC 2012ab). 

Red-necked Stint at the project site 

The BAAM 2012 wet season survey found the species restricted to the open pan and western edge of 

the freshwater areas. This survey found a total of 134 birds on the western edge of the palustrine area 

in the north western section of the closed marsh and 1,088 foraging in the open pan zone. During this 

survey period Red-necked Stints were observed to be foraging in large flocks with other shorebird 

species, mainly sandpipers. The diversity of habitats at the wetland allow the Red-necked Stint to use 

the muddy shallows of the open pan zone as well as the edges of the main wetland basin. 

The BAAM 2012 dry season survey found 47 Red-necked Stints on the south western edge of the open 

marsh zone. This finding potentially adds to the relevance of Caley Valley Wetland as an important 

habitat for migratory shorebirds. Red-necked Stints arrive in Australia from August (possible July) with 

most from early September. Almost all have arrived in Australia by November. They begin the return to 

breeding grounds from late February through to April although a few remain until May (SPRAT). The 47 

Red-necked Stints counted on the site in late June 2012 suggests that that they were young birds, 

which had not migrated to breed and were spending the northern summer in Australia. 

Figure 9-15, Figure 9-16 and Figure 9-17 show the locations and numbers of Red-necked Stint found in 

the project area for both the wet and dry season surveys. 


AUSTRALIAN PAINTED SNIPE AT THE PROJECT SITE 


The general ecology of the Australian Painted Snipe, including its Australian distribution, habitat, 

feeding and roosting requirements are discussed in Section 9.2 and not repeated here. 

The three Australian Painted Snipe recorded in the BAAM 2012 wet season survey were flushed in 

short and relatively sparsely vegetated edge habitat flooded with shallow fresh water on the southern 

fringe of the closed marsh zone. After extrapolation into other areas, BAAM suggested that up to eight 

individuals were likely to occur. However, the report also stated that this number was likely to be higher 

based on the fact that the species is cryptic and flushes only when approached closely. 

The dry season survey recorded 24 individuals with a total estimate of 35 after extrapolation to 

unsurveyed areas. This represents approximately 2.3% of the total population of the species and given 

that commonly the species is only found in small numbers also represents a significant number of 

individuals. The 24 individuals were observed equally in the open and closed marsh areas of the 

wetland. It is notable that within the open and closed marsh zones the Australian Painted Snipe was 

located very broadly across all areas, from the northern most area of the open marsh to the very 

southern edge of the closed marsh. 

Figure 9-18 and Figure 9-19 show the locations and numbers of the Australian Painted Snipe found in 

the project area for both the wet and dry season surveys. 



Figure 9-10: Latham's Snipe - February survey locations 



Figure 9-11: Latham's Snipe - March survey locations 



Figure 9-12: Sharp-tailed Sandpiper - February survey locations 



Figure 9-13: Sharp-tailed Sandpiper - March survey locations 



Figure 9-14: Sharp-tailed Sandpiper - June survey locations 



Figure 9-15: Red-necked Stint - February survey locations 



Figure 9-16: Red-necked Stint - March survey locations 



Figure 9-17: Red-necked Stint - June survey locations 



Figure 9-18: Australian Painted Snipe - February survey locations 



Figure 9-19: Australian Painted Snipe - June survey locations 


9.4 CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES 


Chapter 4 provides a detailed description of the purpose of conservation objectives and how they were 

defined. This section proposes conservation objectives for both: 

• the Caley Valley Wetland (as a key area in the environment and primary habitat for wetland birds); 

and 

• migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe. 

9.4.1 Caley Valley Wetland 

Maintaining the health of the Caley Valley Wetland is relevant to a number of the key issues that are 

addressed in this assessment. It was therefore considered important to develop objectives that aim to 

conserve the wetland and its ecosystem processes. 

Two over-arching conservation objectives are identified for the Caley Valley Wetland: 

1. Maintain and where possible improve wetland ecosystem processes with a focus on habitat quality 

and diversity. 

2. Undertake appropriate wetland ecosystem and habitat monitoring in the Caley Valley Wetland in 

order to properly inform adaptive management. 

9.4.2 Migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted 

Snipe 

As discussed in the previous sections, the Abbot Point project area is known to provide important 

habitat for migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe. The Caley Valley Wetland is known to 

support at least 15 species of migratory shorebirds, greater than 0.1% of the fly populations of the Rednecked 

Stint and Sharp-tailed Sandpiper, an important number of Latham’s Snipe, and support an 

important population of the Australian Painted Snipe. The region more broadly provides a mosaic of 

habitats for these species. 

Considering these factors, three specific conservation objectives have been identified for migratory 

shorebirds and the Australian Painted snipe: 

1. Ongoing use of the wetland by a diversity of migratory shorebird species. 

2. Maintenance of a mosaic and diversity of wetland and coastal habitats for use by these bird 

species. 

3. Ongoing use of the wetland by Latham’s Snipe, Sharp-tailed Sandpiper, Red-necked Stint and the 

Australian Painted Snipe. 

Definition of ‘ongoing use’ 

Given the natural variation in the Caley Valley Wetland as habitat for these species, quantitative 

thresholds have not been set to define the term ‘ongoing use’. Rather, ongoing use is defined with 

reference to EPBC policy statement 3.2.1 (DEWHA 2009a) which identifies the meaning of the term for 

ephemeral wetlands which support migratory shorebirds (such as the Caley Valley Wetland). 



‘Ongoing use’ will therefore mean that the Caley Valley Wetland habitat remains as habitat in which 

migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe have been recorded and where the habitat is not 

lost permanently due to development actions. 

9.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS 

The following section identifies the potential direct and indirect impacts associated with the Abbot Point 

project in relation to migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe. 

Detailed descriptions of the nature and extent of these potential impacts are provided in Appendix A of 

this report. 

9.5.1 Direct impacts 

The Abbot Point project will potentially have two direct impacts on migratory shorebirds and the 

Australian Painted Snipe: 

• habitat loss; and 

• direct bird mortality through collisions with vehicles and/or structures. 

HABITAT LOSS 

As outlined in Appendix A, the Abbot Point project will require some clearing of vegetation within the 

development footprint. 

Figure 9-20 shows the direct impacts that will occur to the Caley Valley Wetland as a result of the 

construction phase. This is the area of maximum impact for the project, and in terms of the wetland is 

the same area of impact as for the operational phase. 

It is anticipated that approximately 55-70 ha of wetland (depending on which rail loop option is 

developed) will be cleared during the construction phase of the Abbot Point project (see Table 9-5). This 

equates to 1.43-1.79% of the wetland, and up to 4.84% of the closed marsh habitat. 

The area of the wetland to be potentially impacted is used by a number of species, and includes habitat 

that is important for the Latham’s Snipe and the Australian Painted Snipe which use the closed marsh 

areas for cover and foraging. The Red-necked Stint and the Sharp-tailed Sand Piper use broader areas 

of the wetland in addition to the closed and open marsh areas. 


Table 9-5: Areas of the Caley Valley Wetland to be potentially cleared 

Wetland zone 

Direct impact areas including compact 

Area (ha) 

western loop option 


% of total wetland 

zone 

Direct impact areas including extended 

Area (ha) 

western loop option 


Intertidal 0 0% 0 0% 

Open pan 0 0% 0 0% 

Open marsh 5.95 1.17% 5.95 1.17% 

Closed marsh 50.00 3.77% 64.15 4.84% 

Total 55.95 1.79% 70.10 1.43% 

DIRECT MORTALITY 

The proposed development will lead to an increase in traffic and in the number of large structures, coal 

terminals, storage facilities etc. Vehicles and large structures have the potential to increase bird 

mortality through direct strikes. 

The direct relationship of large structures and increased traffic on migratory shorebird mortality is 

difficult to quantify both in terms of assessing the probability of such events occurring at all and in terms 

of numbers of birds likely to be killed and/or injured. 

The risk of raised mortality through migratory shorebirds at Abbot Point striking structures is considered 

to be minor given that Abbot Point is used by migratory shorebirds for feeding and roosting rather than 

as an EAA flyway staging or flyover area. 

While the risk of vehicle strike is also considered low, there is increased potential for this to occur during 

construction when vehicles and machinery may be operating within and around habitat areas. 

Management of this potential impact is therefore recommended. 

zone 



Figure 9-20: Construction phase impacts on the wetland 


9.5.2 Indirect Impacts 


The following issues have been identified as having the potential to lead to indirect impacts on migratory 

shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe: 

• fragmentation and edge effects including: 

o weeds; and 

o pests. 

• water quality and hydrology; 

• groundwater; 

• disturbance related impacts including: 

o noise; 

o light; 

o dust; and 

o increased activity. 

FRAGMENTATION AND EDGE EFFECTS 

Fragmentation 

Habitat fragmentation (as a result of clearance or ongoing disturbance) has the potential to reduce the 

value and viability of habitat for species and ecosystems more broadly. As discussed in Appendix A, 

fragmentation of the terrestrial environment may also reduce the viability of an area by increasing the 

occurrence and severity of ‘edge effects’, including weeds and pest animals. 

The construction and operational components of the Abbot Point project are largely located on the 

peripheral areas of the wetland and therefore will not result in direct fragmentation (see Figure 9-30). 

The construction and operational components may however have an effect in terms of increasing the 

likelihood of impacts from weeds and pests. 

The only potential habitat fragmentation which may occur relates to the rail loops. However, the impacts 

of these are difficult to predict as it is not known whether migratory shorebirds and the Australian 

Painted Snipe would continue to use the areas inside the loops. Similarly the ecological health and 

resilience of the wetland habitat inside the loops is difficult to predict, temporally and otherwise. 

Management of potential impacts to wetland habitat from fragmentation and associated edge effects is 

important and the application of mitigation measures is considered necessary; especially in relation to 

weeds and pests. 

Weeds 

The clearing of vegetation, especially during the construction phase, gives rise to the potential for 

opportunistic weed species to invade plant communities within the wetland. 

Weed invasion may threaten wetland biodiversity, leading to a potential decline in both species and 

habitat diversity. Weeds may impact upon wetland ecology in a number of ways by: 

• directly competing with established native wetland plant communities; 


• restricting native plant regeneration through competition; and 

• potentially blocking waterways through the spread of aquatic weeds. 


For migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe, weeds may reduce the populations of floral 

species on which they or their prey rely for either feeding or as shelter. Weeds can also monopolise 

areas that would otherwise provide foraging habitat. 

Areas of the Caley Valley Wetland are currently affected by weed disturbance. The Abbot Point project 

has the potential to exacerbate these problems and as such, mitigation and management measures to 

reduce the potential impacts of weeds should be implemented across the project area. 

Pests 

Clearance of vegetation and the construction of roads and rail corridors have the potential to allow 

greater access to the Abbot Point project site for pest animals. In particular, this may facilitate greater 

accessibility for feral animals that prey on shorebirds, such as feral cats and foxes, and for animals that 

are known to degrade wetland habitat values, such as feral pigs. 

Areas of the Caley Valley Wetland are currently affected by pest animals. Management of pest animals 

has been identified as necessary as part of the management for migratory shorebirds and the Australian 

Painted Snipe, and for several other values at the Abbot Point project site. 

WATER QUALITY AND HYDROLOGY 

Water quality within the wetland and the broader project site is spatially and temporally variable. Water 

quality affects the condition and functioning of wetland habitats and the following issues arising from 

construction and/or operational activities have the potential to affect water quality: 

• increased sedimentation; 

• release of contaminants; 

• changed connectivity between the wetland and marine/estuarine areas; 

• changed connectivity within the wetland; and 

• increased water levels upstream of the causeway. 

A reduction in water quality may affect water dependant fauna and vegetation, and has the ability to 

reduce available food resources for migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe. 

Many of the surface water impacts are expected to be temporary; for instance, during construction 

where hydrological processes may be more affected or where sedimentation impacts are greater as a 

result of earthworks. In such instances, the effects on many migratory shorebirds will be less severe as 

they tend to use a diversity of wetland habitats; with many species (including the Red-necked Stint and 

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper) moving regularly between different habitat zones (BAAM 2012). The exception 

to this is Latham’s Snipe. Although this species has been shown to also move between the open and 

closed marsh zones it would be more susceptible to any reduction in vegetation cover caused by 

hydrological or water quality changes to the wetland system. 

Implementation of management measures in relation to potential impacts to surface water quality and 

hydrology is considered necessary. 


GROUNDWATER 


The development may potentially impact upon both the quality and quantity of groundwater in the 

project area. The effect of these potential impacts may increase during the dry season when the 

groundwater dependence of Lake Caley is at its highest. 

Potential impacts on groundwater levels will be greatest during the construction phase of the 

development where changes may result from: 

• construction dewatering; 

• aquifer exposure; 

• ponding through inadequate drainage; and 

• depressurisation of compressible soils. 

There is also the potential for groundwater to be contaminated through spills, runoff and exposure of 

Acid Sulphate Soils. 

Migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe have the potential to be affected by groundwater 

impacts where they lead to impacts to the wetland (e.g. leading to changes in water levels, water quality 

or vegetation composition). 

Notwithstanding the potential risks, the probability of impacts to the wetland habitat and migratory 

shorebirds are expected to be minor given that potential construction impacts will be temporary and 

groundwater will not be extracted as part of the project (GHD 2012c). 

Management of potential impacts to groundwater is still important and the application of mitigation 

measures is considered necessary. 

DUST 

The potential impacts from dust deposition and emissions will vary during the construction and 

operational phases. During construction most dust will be generated as a result of vegetation clearing 

and topsoil removal. During coal terminal operations emission of coal dust will be the primary source 

and will be generated at any point where coal is handled, conveyed or open to erosion by the wind. The 

construction and operation of coal terminal infrastructure has the potential to cause elevated levels of 

dust if not appropriately managed. 

Excessive dust deposition and emissions could potentially negatively affect migratory shorebirds and 

the Australian Painted Snipe in two ways: 

• habitat degradation from dust deposition in the wetland leading to impacts to vegetation; or 

• irritation of avian respiratory systems. 

Habitat degradation 

Dust deposition has the potential to reduce the photosynthetic ability of both terrestrial and aquatic floral 

species which may lead to a reduction in food resources for migratory shorebirds or the Australian 

Painted Snipe. Katestone Environmental (2012) noted that this effect may occur where the maximum 

monthly rate of dust deposition exceeds about 200mg/m 2 /day for a 120 day rolling average. 



Katestone Environmental (2012) predicted that this deposition rate could potentially be exceeded in a 

worst case scenario across 2% of the wetland (open marsh area). This area would be immediately 

adjacent to the western edge of T3. Management of dust emissions should therefore be undertaken. 

Irritation of avian respiratory systems 

Katestone Environmental (2012) reported dust emissions against three main measures: 

• Total Suspended Particles (TSP); 

• particulate matter less than 10 µm in diameter (PM10); and 

• particulate matter less than 2.5 µm in diameter (PM2.5). 

There is limited information available on the potential effects of dust on flora and fauna in both wetland 

and marine environments. There are no current government policies or other widely accepted guidelines 

as to the dust levels or thresholds that are relevant to flora and fauna. In lieu of such guidelines, human 

health reference criteria were used as surrogate criteria for potential impacts on the broader 

environment (including migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe). 

It should be noted that the use of human health reference criteria in this analysis is not ideal, however, 

in the absence of a relevant ecological alternative it was necessary for this to be used in the technical 

report (Katestone Environmental 2012). The CIA has used this as baseline for modelling and as better 

information on impacts become known management will adapt to a more appropriate set of criteria. 

There are other potential criteria available based on deposition rates and alternative methodologies. 

Further work is underway to assess and confirm the most appropriate approach. 

The criteria that were used are: 

• TSP – 90 µg/m over an annual averaging period. 

• PM10 – 50 µg/m over a 24 hour averaging period. 

• PM2.5 – 8 µg/m over an annual averaging period. 

Modelling undertaken by Katestone Environmental (2012) showed that there are unlikely to be any 

exceedances of the criteria for PM2.5. This is a positive result as PM2.5 is known to cause greater 

respiratory problems than TSP or PM10. 

The modelling did show that there could be exceedances of TSP and PM10. The results of this work are 

shown in Figure 9-21 and Figure 9-22 respectively. It is predicted that the average annual concentration 

of TSP would exceed the reference criteria for human health and well-being in less than 1% (or 

11.88 ha) of the wetland area. While 24 hour concentrations of PM10 were expected to exceed the 

reference criteria for human health and well-being over less than 3% (or 90.03 ha) of the wetland’s 

estuarine area and less than 5% (or 240.31 ha) of the freshwater area. 

It is difficult to determine the potential impacts to migratory shorebirds or the Australian Painted Snipe 

as a result of the predicted exceedances of dust emissions from the Abbot Point project. The criteria 

used in the modelling are considered to be conservative when applied to human health and are 

therefore assumed to be conservative for the purposes of assessing impacts on the environment. In 

addition to this, the estimation of emissions and dispersion modelling was based on a conservative 

approach which has been demonstrated to over-estimate dust levels by a factor or 2 to 3 times. 

However, these exceedances may be of consequence to wetland fauna and suitable mitigation, 

management and monitoring measures are therefore considered necessary. 



Figure 9-21: TSP Deposition 



Figure 9-22: PM10 Deposition 


DISTURBANCE RELATED IMPACTS 

Noise 


The potential indirect impacts of noise on migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe depend 

on many factors including noise level, frequency, distribution, duration, number of events, variation over 

time, rate of onset, noise type, existence and level of ambient noise, time of year and time of day (SLR 

2012). 

For migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe, the greatest potential impact of increased 

noise would be the loss of habitat through avoidance. Noise levels greater than background ambient 

levels can deter birds from certain areas, thereby marginalising some areas of habitat. The result of this 

avoidance and corresponding displacement may mean that additional pressure is put on other areas of 

the wetland. 

For some species of migratory shorebird such as the Red-necked Stint which use a range of habitat 

types in the wetland, avoidance may restrict the range and diversity of habitat currently available to 

them. 

Migratory shorebirds need to feed extremely efficiently. They need to eat up to one-third of their body 

weight every day to fuel their daily activities as well as build up fat reserves for their northward 

migrations (Thurston 1996). Responses to noise stimuli can cause migratory shorebirds to lose some of 

this valuable feeding time. Although it should be noted that the level of response and commensurate 

loss of feeding time will be dependant not only on noise factors but also on the vulnerability of species 

to noise and their potential to habituate to a noisier environment. 

The potential effects are the same for roosting as for feeding. Noise can cause disorientation and 

subsequent displacement from roosting areas. 

In addition to the potential impacts noise may have on habitat for migratory shorebirds or the Australian 

Painted Snipe, there are also potential direct effects on the birds themselves including: 

• interference with some species ability to communicate; 

• physical damage to hearing organs; and 

• increased susceptibility to predation through reduced predator avoidance. 

Both steady continuous and single noise events have the potential to lead to impacts. SLR (2012 & 

2012a) modelled different operational and construction noise projections associated with the project. 

The key thresholds for potential impacts to shorebirds are: 

• 60 dBA for single noise events; and 

• 65 dBA for steady continuous noise. 

These thresholds are likely to be conservative in relation to potential impacts to migratory shorebirds 

and the Australian Painted Snipe but provide an indication about the noise levels which may cause 

alarm. 

The extent of potential impacts on different wetland habitats from modelled operational noise is 

illustrated in Figure 9-23 to Figure 9-26. The figures show how noise impacts will vary under the 

different rail options, and illustrate the different scenarios for operational noise impacts. Figure 9-27 

shows the worst case for construction noise impacts modelled at 60 dBA. 



It can be seen from the maps that steady continuous noise will predominately occur over the project 

area and the trestles in the marine area. Single noise events are more associated with the rail line and 

movement of trains. 

Single noise events have a considerably larger impact on the wetland than continuous noise events 

even when assessed at a slightly lower decibel range. Table 9-6 shows the areas of wetland habit 

affected by either single event or continuous noise for both the compact and extended rail options. 

Table 9-6: Noise impacts on wetland environments 


60 dBA single 

/ compact 

60 dBA single 

/ extended 

Operational noise Construction noise 

65 dBA 

continuous / 

compact 

65 dBA 

continuous / 

extended 

60 dBA single / 

compact 

60 dBA single / 

extended 

Intertidal 0 ha 0 ha 0 ha 0 ha 0 ha 0 ha 

Open Pan 0 ha 0 ha 0 ha 0 ha 0 ha 0 ha 

Open marsh 0 ha 0 ha 0.31 ha 0.27 ha 11.45 11.47 

Closed marsh 128.13 ha 176.2 ha 2.06 ha 1.56 ha 94.91 87.39 

Total 128.13 ha 176.2 ha 2.37 1.83 ha 106.36 98.86 

Migratory shorebirds are known to habituate to noise and it is likely that a number of the species that 

use the wetland will not be affected by noise in the long term. For example, important populations of 

migratory shorebirds occur near Sydney airport. However, Latham’s Snipe and the Australian Painted 

Snipe are disturbance sensitive species and may show greater effects to noise than other species. 

Management of unnecessary noise events is appropriate for the project and would provide a benefit to 

migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe. 



Figure 9-23: Operational noise - steady continuous (extended rail loop option) 



Figure 9-24: Operational noise - steady continuous (compact rail loop option) 



Figure 9-25: Operational noise - single event (compact rail loop option) 



Figure 9-26: Operational noise - single event (extended rail loop option) 



Figure 9-27: Construction noise (worst case scenario) 


Light 


The primary potential impacts to migratory shorebirds and Australian Painted Snipe from artificial light 

relate to: 

• potential changes to patterns of daytime and night-time foraging (Rohweder and Baverstock 1996, 

Burton and Armitage 2005); 

• potential changes to foraging resources through changes to photosynthetic cycles of some floral 

species and the abundance of invertebrates; and 

• potential increased vulnerability to predators. 

Figure 9-28 shows the extent of potential light spill and therefore the potential impacts in different areas 

of the wetland. It is predicted that no more than 0.49 ha of the wetland (closed marsh area) will be 

subject to light spill and potential impacts to birds are therefore considered to be minor. 

Measures to monitor and minimise artificial lighting is important for a range of values and should be 

implemented across the project. 

Increased activity 

Increased activity by people within the development area and surrounds has the potential to disturb 

migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe. 

The major consequence of irregular disturbance is a potential shift to alternative feeding or roosting 

sites. The time and energy costs as a result of disturbance can be more damaging than permanent 

habitat loss (West et al. 2006). 

In the case of sustained disturbance, the effect may be similar to that of noise impacts in that migratory 

shorebirds and Australian Painted Snipe may be deterred from using certain areas through avoidance 

thereby marginalising some areas of habitat. The result of this avoidance and corresponding 

displacement may mean that additional pressure is put on other areas of the wetland. 

The response of shorebirds to disturbance varies between species. Glover et al. (2011) determined the 

distance at which shorebirds would take flight after being disturbed. For the key species (other than the 

Australian Painted Snipe) these distances are: 

• Red-necked Stint – 18.75 m; 

• Sharp-tailed Sandpiper - 20.20 m; and 

• Latham’s Snipe - 18.63 m. 

However, it should be noted that alert responses to disturbance (e.g. freezing or cessation of foraging) 

occur at greater distances (Paton et al. 2000). This would particularly be the case for Latham’s Snipe 

and the Australian Painted Snipe which are known to be sensitive to disturbance. In addition, the 

Eastern Curlew has been recorded taking flight from disturbance at a distance of 183.5 m (Glover et al. 

2011). 

Due to the range of potential disturbance distances for shorebirds, a 200 m potential disturbance area 

has been applied (see Figure 9-29). It is likely that increased activity within these areas adjacent to the 

wetland will lead to disturbance and reduce the habitat availability for migratory shorebirds and the 

Australian Painted Snipe. Managing access to the wetland is recommended for reducing the potential 

impacts of disturbance. 



Figure 9-28: Light spill onto wetland habitat 



Figure 9-29: 200 m potential disturbance area 



9.6 AVOIDANCE, MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT 

Detailed port wide requirements and management measures to reduce impacts from the project are 

provided in Appendix B of this report. Many of these are relevant to migratory shorebirds and the 

Australian Painted Snipe, and are summarised in this section in relation to their effectiveness in 

protecting these species and achieving the conservation objectives for the wetland and birds. 

Based on the analysis of impacts in the previous section, avoidance, mitigation and management 

measures are considered necessary for the following potential impacts: 

• habitat loss; 

• direct mortality; 

• fragmentation and edge effects including: 

o weeds; and 

o pests. 

• water quality and hydrology; 

• groundwater; 

• disturbance related impacts including: 

o noise; 

o light; 

o dust; and 

o increased activity. 

In addition to these measures a migratory shorebird and Australian Painted Snipe monitoring program 

should be developed which would aim to monitor the distribution and abundance of these species in the 

Abbot Point project area and assist in ensuring that the conservation objectives are met. Details of this 

program are provided at the end of this section. 

9.6.1 Direct impacts 

HABITAT LOSS 

It is recommended that a set of port wide requirements be implemented to minimise the areas of 

vegetation to be cleared (including wetland habitat) and the overall effects of habitat loss. These 

requirements are set out in Appendix B and include: 

• Proponents should clear the minimum required footprint which still enables the effective running of 

Port construction and operation. 

• Proponents should minimise the severity of impacts from vegetation clearance. 

• Residual impacts to environmental values should be adequately compensated for through the 

provision of a suitable offset. 



However, even with the application of these requirements unavoidable impacts to the wetland will occur 

as a result of the Abbot Point project. Offsets are therefore considered necessary to compensate for 

these impacts (see Section 9.8). 

DIRECT MORTALITY 

While mortality of migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe through structural or vehicular 

strike is not considered likely to be of high consequence at Abbot Point, it is recognised that 

construction and operational activities may lead to some level of impact. 

Accordingly, a range of measures should be undertaken to avoid and/or mitigate the potential for such 

impacts. These measures (outlined in Appendix B) would be guided by the port wide requirement to 

minimise the incidence of fauna mortality during both construction and operational activities and are 

considered adequate in addressing this risk to migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe. 

9.6.2 Indirect impacts 

FRAGMENTATION AND EDGE EFFECTS 

The potential impacts to migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe from habitat 

fragmentation include edge effects and a corresponding potential increase in the spread and occurrence 

of weeds and pests. To manage these risks a number of port wide requirements relevant to migratory 

shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe should be adopted including: 

• Necessary measures to minimise impacts associated with habitat fragmentation. 

• Necessary measures to minimise edge effects including those associated with weeds and the 

increased risk of fire. 

• The Terrestrial Biodiversity Management Plan should provide for the development and 

implementation of a port wide pest animal control and management strategy. 

• The Caley Valley Wetland Management Plan should provide for the development and 

implementation of a weed control and management strategy to address weed issues affecting the 

wetland. 

Monitoring of migratory shorebirds, the Australian Painted Snipe and their habitats in accordance with 

the Caley Valley Wetland Management Plan will enable the effectiveness of these measures to be 

tested and the implementation of adaptive management processes where necessary. 

This management framework is expected to adequately address the risks posed to migratory shorebirds 

and the Australian Painted Snipe from fragmentation and edge effects and the related risks of weeds 

and pests. 

WATER QUALITY AND HYDROLOGY 

A range of measures should be implemented throughout construction and operation of the Port to 

manage potential impacts to water quality of the Caley Valley Wetland, and ensure that the existing 

hydrological regime is not substantially impacted in the long-term. 



These measures are outlined in Appendix B and should be undertaken to ensure that the port wide 

requirements in relation to water quality and hydrology are met. The requirements are: 

• Establishment of baseline water quality parameters within the Caley Valley Wetland using 

appropriate guidelines and taking account of naturally elevated constituent concentrations. These 

baseline parameters should be established under the Caley Valley Wetland Management Plan. 

• Co-location of infrastructure into one disturbance area as far as practicable. 

• Sequencing of construction activities within the Caley Valley Wetland to limit impacts to the existing 

hydrological regime, as far as possible. 

• Necessary measures to manage water quality issues associated with construction activities. 

• Necessary measures to manage water quality issues associated with operational activities. 

Monitoring of released water against baseline parameters and in accordance with licence conditions 

should occur. A reporting and auditing process should be established under the JEMF and this will 

provide for adaptive management to achieve the conservation objectives. 


and the Australian Painted Snipe from potential indirect impacts relating to water quality and hydrology. 

GROUNDWATER 

Notwithstanding the fact that the effects of groundwater changes are expected to be low, a range of 

measures should be implemented throughout construction and operation of the Port to manage 

potential impacts to groundwater quality and levels. These measures are outlined in Appendix B. 

The measures should be undertaken to ensure that the port wide requirements in relation to 

groundwater are met. The requirements are: 

• Development of a Groundwater Monitoring and Management Plan and numerical groundwater 

model based on the recommendations set out in GHD (2012c). The Plan should: 

o define baseline groundwater level and quality conditions; 

o enable staged model improvements; 

o provide a robust means of monitoring the status of groundwater; 

o define the triggers, need and effectiveness of any mitigation measures; and 

o be developed and implemented under the Caley Valley Wetland Management Plan 

• Proponents should undertake necessary measures to avoid or minimise impacts on groundwater 

availability and quality 


and the Australian Painted Snipe from potential indirect impacts relating to groundwater. 

DUST 

A range of measures should be implemented throughout construction and operation of the Port to 

manage the potential impacts of dust. These measures (outlined in Appendix B) should be undertaken 

to ensure that the following port wide requirements in relation to dust are met: 



• Equipment and operations should be designed to minimise coal dust emissions. 

• Dust emissions should not exceed agreed human health reference criteria at the relevant 

environmental receptor monitoring sites. 

• Where exceedances occur, proponents should undertake the necessary measures to reduce dust 

emissions to below agreed human health reference criteria. 

The effectiveness of the management measures should be tested through air quality monitoring which 

would be based on the recommendations set out in Katestone Environmental (2012). The JEMF should 

provide for adaptive management should different approaches be required to achieve the port wide 

requirements for dust. 

Based on these recommendations, dust emissions should be maintained below human health reference 

criteria within the wetland, and this management framework is expected to adequately address the risks 

posed to migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe from the potential indirect impacts 

relating to dust. 

NOISE 

Measures (outlined in Appendix B) should be undertaken to ensure that the following port wide 

requirement in relation to noise is met: 

• Proponents should minimise operational and construction noise impacts. 

The majority of recommended management measures relate to short-term single noise events usually 

associated with start up activities (e.g. conveyor start up alarms). This reflects evidence that many bird 

species become habituated to noise disturbances where the noise is steady and continuous rather than 

single, short-term and/or sporadic (SLR 2012). This is particularly the case where the noise constitutes 

a non-biological threat (Glover et al. 2011). 

Despite the proposed application of management measures to minimise noise, it is considered likely 

that some level of disturbance within the wetland will remain. The inter-relationship or additive effect of 

this potential impact with other residual impacts is discussed further in Section 9.8 below. 

LIGHT 

While the potential impacts to migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe from artificial light 

are considered to be minor, management of artificial lighting will be important for a range of other values 

(e.g. marine turtles). A range of measures (outlined in Appendix B) are proposed throughout 

construction and operation to ensure that the following port wide requirement in relation to light is met: 

• Proponents should minimise artificial light impacts. 


and the Australian Painted Snipe from the potential indirect impacts relating to artificial light. 

INCREASED ACTIVITY 

The extent of migratory shorebird alert and alarm responses to anthropogenic disturbance should be 

minimised through restricted access to designated areas of the wetland. 



However, it is considered likely that a disturbance area would remain in close proximity to the project 

area (up to 200 m from the edge of the development). The inter-relationship or additive effect of this 

potential impact with other residual impacts is discussed further in Section 9.8 below. 

9.7 MONITORING PROGRAMS 

9.7.1 Caley Valley Wetland monitoring program 

A long-term monitoring program should be implemented to understand how port operations interact with 

the ecosystem processes of the Caley Valley Wetland, and to determine if the conservation objectives 

for the wetland (Section 9.4) have been met. 

The monitoring program should be developed and implemented as part of the Caley Valley Wetland 

Management Plan and draw on the results from other monitoring programs (where possible) and bring 

them together to understand the state of the wetland over time. The wetland monitoring program should 

focus on: 

• hydrological processes; 

• water quality (to be monitored as part of impact monitoring outlined in Appendix B); 

• habitat quality and diversity (to be monitored as part of the migratory shorebird and Australian 

Painted Snipe monitoring program outlined in Section 9.7.2 below); and 

• status of threats such as weeds and pests. 

9.7.2 Migratory shorebird and Australian Painted Snipe 

monitoring program 

A long-term monitoring program should be implemented to determine the presence of migratory 

shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe within the Abbot Point project area. The monitoring 

program should aim to determine if the species continue to use the area and if the conservation 

objectives (Section 9.4) have been met. 

Key aspects of the monitoring should include: 

• survey methods consistent with the migratory shorebird EPBC Act policy statement and 

background paper (DEWHA 2009 a and 2009b); 

• surveys during both the wet and dry seasons; 

• surveys within defined sampling locations including both the wetland and broader intertidal areas; 

• habitat monitoring within the wetland to track the status of shorebird habitat values over time; and 

• surveys by appropriately trained and experienced wetland bird ecologists. 

The monitoring program should form part of the adaptive management process within the Caley Valley 

Wetland Management Plan that should assess whether the port wide requirements and conservation 



objectives for migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe are being met. This process should 

incorporate the results of impact monitoring and consider three management ‘pathways’ including: 

• Where environmental outcomes and performance targets are met, no management response 

would be required. 

• Where there is evidence that a ‘warning trigger’ has been met, the cause of the change would be 

investigated and supplementary monitoring and management would be undertaken. 

• Where an ‘impact trigger’ has been met the cause of the change would be investigated and 

management measures adapted to address the cause. Supplementary monitoring would be 

undertaken to determine the effectiveness of the adapted management and where conservation 

outcomes were still not being met a contingency response would need to be developed. 

Details around the processes for impact monitoring, determining triggers and the application of 

contingency responses are provided in Part D of this report. 

9.8 RESIDUAL IMPACTS AND OFFSETS 

An extensive range of avoidance, mitigation and management measures are recommended to be 

applied through the Abbot Point project to reduce the level of potential impacts to migratory shorebirds 

and the Australian Painted Snipe. These include both port wide and project specific measures and are 

focused on ensuring that the conservation objectives for these species are achieved. 

Based on the application of mitigation measures, it is expected that there will be no residual impacts in 

relation to water quality, groundwater, weeds, pests, dust and light. 

However, despite the application of best practice measures the Abbot Point project is still expected to 

result in the following residual impacts (both direct and indirect) to migratory shorebirds and the 

Australian Painted Snipe: 

• Direct impacts including the loss of approximately either 70.1 ha of wetland (for the extended 

western loop) or 55.95 ha of wetland (compact western loop). 

• Additional potential indirect impacts to wetland areas adjacent to the development due to the 

effects of: 

o noise leading to possible disturbance and isolation of habitat; and 

o increased activity leading to possible disturbance and isolation of habitat. 

In order to understand how the potential indirect impacts of noise and increased activity would combine 

in the wetland (i.e. additive cumulative impacts), the worst case scenarios for each impact have been 

mapped together to understand the potential cumulative indirect impacts (see Figure 9-30). The areas 

of these maximum potential cumulative indirect impacts and the relative percentage of the total wetland 

zones are shown in Table 9-7. 

Under these scenarios, approximately 313-349 ha of wetland (depending on which rail loop option is 

developed) would be subject to potential cumulative indirect impacts. This equates to 7.98-8.89% of the 

wetland, and up to 22.79% of the closed marsh habitat. 



It is important to note that a conservative approach is being taken to the assessment of potential 

cumulative indirect impacts. The nature of the potential impacts and the available scientific literature 

make it difficult to quantify the precise level of impact. As such, a worst case scenario is assumed in 

relation to modelling the potential additive effects of noise and increased activity. It is likely that the 

actual impacts will be less. 

Table 9-7: Potential cumulative indirect impact areas 


Potential cumulative indirect impact 

areas including compact western loop 

Area (ha) 

option 


zone 

Potential cumulative indirect impact areas 

including extended western loop option 

Area (ha) 


Intertidal 0 0% 0 0% 

Open pan 0 0% 0 0% 

Open marsh 46.78 9.22% 47 9.26% 

Closed marsh 266.48 20.11% 301.96 22.79% 

Total 313.26 7.98% 348.96 8.89% 

Given the conservative approach to assessing potential impacts, monitoring (as part of the monitoring 

programs discussed in Section 9.7) should be used to determine the actual cumulative indirect impacts 

to migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe. The results of this analysis should form part of 

the adaptive management process within the Caley Valley Wetland Management Plan (as discussed 

above). Contingency responses should be applied if the results of monitoring show that habitat has 

been degraded to the point that key species no longer use it. 

The area of the wetland that may be impacted (directly and potentially indirectly) is used by a number of 

species, and includes habitat that is important for the Latham’s Snipe and Australian Painted Snipe 

which use the closed marsh areas for cover and foraging. The Red-necked Stint and the Sharp-tailed 

Sand Piper use broader areas of the wetland in addition to the closed and open marsh areas. 

The loss of habitat and the additional potential indirect impacts to the wetland would be considered a 

significant impact in relation to migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe. The wetland 

represents important habitat for these species and the loss of part of the eastern portion of the Caley 

Valley Wetland would be significant. 

As such, offsets to compensate for these residual impacts to migratory shorebirds and the Australian 

Painted Snipe are considered appropriate. These offsets should: 

• Address principles such as like-for-like, protection in perpetuity, and ongoing management to 

ensure offset areas continue to provide benefits to migratory shorebirds. 

• Provide habitat values for Latham’s Snipe and the Australian Painted Snipe which will be the key 

species impacted. 

• Be delivered through the JEMF. 

The quantum of offsets for shorebirds should reflect the final impact areas (to be determined by the final 

nature of the development). 

zone 



Figure 9-30: Potential cumulative indirect impact area 


9.9 INTERACTION WITH CLIMATE CHANGE 


As discussed in relation to other MNES, the interaction between the proposed Abbot Point project and 

climate change has been considered for migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe. This 

analysis is based on the outcomes of the impact assessment undertaken above and an understanding 

of how climate change may affect those species at Abbot Point. Whilst understanding climate change 

effects has considerable uncertainty, the analysis in this report has been based on the best available 

information including that developed for the broader Great Barrier Reef (e.g. GBRMPA 2007, 2009, 

2012c) and more specifically for this cumulative impact assessment (Arup 2012, 2012a). 

As part of GBRMPA’s Draft Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (GBRMPA 2012c), a vulnerability 

assessment was prepared for shorebirds (including the migratory shorebirds and Australian Painted 

Snipe discussed in this chapter). The assessment aimed to do a number of things including to identify 

the: 

• pressures on shorebirds; 

• levels of exposure and sensitivity to key threats within the GBR region; 

• capacity of shorebirds to adapt (naturally or through management); and 

• overall vulnerability of shorebirds. 

Shorebirds were shown to be at an overall level of medium vulnerability in relation to the combined 

pressures of a range of activities. Specifically in relation to climate change, they were assessed to be at 

high vulnerability. This was based on a number of issues (including some beyond the boundaries of 

Australia): 

• A very high degree of exposure to climate change through likely issues such as inundation of 

feeding areas, impacts of extreme weather events on habitat, and impacts to breeding in the 

northern hemisphere. 

• A very high degree of sensitivity to climate change due to the ecological traits of shorebirds. 

• A poor capacity to adapt to the effects of climate change due to the ecological traits of shorebirds. 

Perhaps one of the major issues for the Caley Valley Wetland would be changes to rainfall that led to 

long term reductions in the size of the wetland. 

Given the operational life of the Port of Abbot Point is expected to be many decades long, there is the 

likelihood that climate change effects will interact with impacts resulting from port operation. It is 

considered less likely for interactive effects to occur during port construction, due to the short-term 

construction timeframes. 

The following interactive effects between climate change and port operations are potentially relevant to 

migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe and their habitats: 

• Habitat loss in the Caley Valley Wetland – areas of the eastern portion of the wetland are proposed 

to be lost to development. It is possible that this reduction in available wetland habitats would 

combine with climate change pressures to lead to long term impacts to shorebirds. However, 

offsets are recommended to be provided to compensate for this habitat loss which would provide 

regional benefits to the species. 

• Potential indirect impacts to habitat within the Caley Valley Wetland due to the combined effects of 

noise and disturbance – additional areas of the eastern portion of the wetland may be impacted 



indirectly. It is recommended that the JEMF be established to monitor these potential effects, and 

provide for contingency responses (e.g. changed mitigation or management, or additional offsets) 

in order to avoid or compensate for any long term impacts from the port operation. This would 

either ensure avoidance of the impact or additional offsets which would provide regional benefits to 

the species. 

In addition to the proposed set of specific mitigation, management and offset measures to protect 

migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe, the recommended conservation objectives for 

the wetland aim to maintain and where possible improve wetland ecosystem processes focusing on 

habitat quality and diversity. This would be undertaken through adaptive management of the wetland 

and particularly through the management of threats such as weeds and pests. These activities to 

improve the resilience of the wetland would perhaps be the strongest mechanism for providing the best 

opportunity for shorebirds and the Australia Painted Snipe to respond to climate change within the 

Abbot Point project area. 

Overall, interactive effects between climate change, port operations, migratory shorebirds and the 

Australian Painted Snipe may be moderate. However, the potential future effects of climate change on 

these species could only be detected by careful monitoring over time. Both species and their habitats 

should be monitored via carefully devised long-term programs (as described above). Such programs 

should aim to detect impacts both from port operations and those resulting from other factors like 

climate change. The data from these programs can then be fed into adaptive management pathways, 

as detailed in the JEMF. This will enable management responses that directly address these potential 

impacts. 

9.10 OUTCOME 

The impact assessment for migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe has taken into 

account the most recent research information, historical and current survey results, advice from MNES 

experts, and results and recommendations from technical impact studies commissioned for the Abbot 

Point project. 

The key findings of the impact assessment are: 

• The Caley Valley Wetland provides: 

o important habitat for a diversity of migratory shorebirds (most notably Red-necked Stint, 

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper and Latham’s Snipe); and 

o supports an important population of the Australian Painted Snipe. 

• Avoidance, mitigation and management measures would substantially reduce the potential impacts 

to these species. However, residual impacts would also occur and offsets would be appropriate for 

migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe. These should be delivered through the 

JEMF and should include offsets for direct impacts. 

• Monitoring should be undertaken to determine if indirect impacts are degrading habitat. Where this 

is shown to be the case, a contingency response should be implemented. 

• Two over-arching conservation objectives for the Caley Valley Wetland have been identified that 

would help protect habitat for these species. These objectives are: 



o Maintain and where possible improve wetland ecosystem processes focussing on habitat 

quality and diversity. 

o Undertake appropriate wetland ecosystem and habitat monitoring in the Caley Valley Wetland 

in order to properly inform adaptive management. 

• Enhancement of the wetland will help to improve the resilience of the area and help provide the 

best opportunity for shorebirds and the Australia Painted Snipe to respond to climate change within 

the Abbot Point project area. 

• With the adoption of the measures proposed in this chapter, it is expected that conservation 

objectives for migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe would be achieved. These 

are: 

o continued use of the wetland by a diversity of migratory shorebird species; 

o maintenance of a mosaic and diversity of wetland and coastal habitats for use by these bird 

species; and 

o continued use of the wetland by Latham’s Snipe, Sharp-tailed Sandpiper, Red-necked Stint 

and the Australian Painted Snipe.

Chapter 9 – Migratory shorebirds and the Australian Painted Snipe

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?